247 (Delhi). (ix) Ravindra Kr. Verma v. CIT

73 Taxmann.com 117High Court2016#11000 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 247 (Delhi). (ix) Ravindra Kr. Verma v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI , BELAGAVI vs. SHRI IDREES MOHAMMED, KALABURAGI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 149/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji01 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi, . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Idrees Mohammed Shop No. 4Cc, New Vegetable Market, Main Road, Kalaburagi, Karnataka-585101. Pan: Aajpi7572E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/04/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Mr Ramesh Mudhol [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Sashi Saklani [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 69A

…nts been produced, they would have gone against the interest of the assessee. 4.8 Though in present case the Revenue is better placed, a reference still can be drawn from decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ‘T Lakhamshi Ladha & Co Vs CIT’ [2016, 73 Taxmann.com 117 (Bom)] wherein hon’ble lordships have upheld the addition made on the basis of statement of one partner who confirmed the findings from material in hand, discrediting the retraction of other partner. In present case the ITAT-Panaji Page 11 of 30 DCIT Vs Idrees Mohammed ITA No. 149/PAN/2023 AY: 2017-18 addition is not only supported by (i)…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S MOHIT ISPAT LTD., KUNDAIM

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

…uttal of the respondent assessee but find one in the argument of the Revenue. 18. Though in present case the Revenue is better placed, a reference still can be drawn from decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in ‘T Lakhamshi Ladha & Co Vs CIT’ [2016, 73 Taxmann.com 117 (Bom)] wherein hon’ble lordships have upheld the ITAT-Panaji Page 22 of 44 ACIT Vs M/s Mohit Ispat Limited ITA No. 009/PAN/2020 AY: 2016-17 addition made on the basis of statement of one partner who confirmed the findings from seized IMs, discrediting the retraction of other partner. 19. We find that, the impugned twin additions were del…