200 ITR 567/68 Taxman\n344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji

173 ITR 79Reported decision1988#23104 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 127 Section 139 Section 251 Section 106 Section 115BBE Section 118 Section 120 Section 122

Judgments citing 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman\n344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…57 (Raj.), CIT v. Smt. Prem Kumari Surana [1994] 206 ITR 715 (Raj.), CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270 (Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D. Jewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa [1985] 156 ITR 105/23 Taxman 568 (Raj.) and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). In the above refe…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Bhim Singh, Kota

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

For Appellant: Shri V.B. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10Section 143(3)

…Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. "5. In coming to this conclusion, this Court has followed another decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bharatchanda Banjdeo (1985) 154 ITR 236 (M.P.). The decision of this Court in CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji (1988) 173 ITR 79, we are informed by the learned counsel, has not been appealed against. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the application under Section 256(1) has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal and do not deserve further consideration." 32. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bh…