15 ITR OLD 128 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar) (iii) PCIT v. Marg Ltd.

468 ITR 392High Court2024#18039 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 145(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of account mercantile system of accounting profits and gains of business or profession section 145(3)section 145 scrutiny assessment income from other sources previous year section 143(2)section 144 section 143 section 143(3)

Judgments citing 15 ITR OLD 128 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar) (iii) PCIT v. Marg Ltd.

SUNDARAM ROADLINES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1642/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 234A

…e Tax vs. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 284 (SC)/[2018] 259 Taxman 370 (SC) [01-10-2018] ➤ Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, (Central)-1 vs. Forum Sales (P.) Ltd. [2024] 160 taxmann.com 93 (Delhi)/[2024] 298 Taxman 533 (Delhi)/[2024] 468 ITR 392 (Delhi) [01-03-2024] ➤ West Coast Fine Foods (India) Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai (ITA No. 893/MUM/2024)-ITAT Mumbai 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the orders passed by the lower authorities and requested to confirm the addition. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials availabl…

M/S R C JEWELLERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-32 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 270A

…ee’s instant third argument that lack of a DIN of section 153D approval is either allotment or quotation, as the case may be, vitiates the entire assessment itself. Rejected accordingly. 13. Learned counsel lastly quotes PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P.) Ltd. (2024) 468 ITR 392 (Del.) that without rejecting books of account, re-estimation of profits in the assessee’s case herein is not sustainable. We are of the considered view that the above judicial precedent coming from hon’ble jurisdictional high court does not apply in the assessee’s case as the issue therein was not that of unaccounted sales assessed herein @ 12%…

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke M/s Kanak Vrindavan Resorts ITO, Vs. Limited Ward 6(2), 4th Floor-123, Jan Path, Shyam Jaipur Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACK8480D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA…

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…following case laws are quoted in support – (i) DCIT vs. Swananda Properties Pvt Ltd (2020) 15 ITR OLD 128 (Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar & Co. (2016) 386 ITR 702 (Kar) (iii) PCIT Vs. Marg Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 580 (Mad) (iv) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales Pvt Ltd. (2024) 468 ITR 392 (Del) It is also relevant to mention that the Learned CIT(A) on the first page of the appellate order has also mentioned that the order appeals was passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed as the Learned Assessing Officer has not followed the provisions…

NITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1214/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Nitesh Agrawal Deputy Commissioner of Vs. 38, Uniyara Garden Trimurti Income Tax, Jaipur Circle, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANWPA5674M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. & Ms. Twinkle Jain, A…