287 (Delhi), ITO v. Dulari Digital Photo Services (P.) Ltd.

24 Taxmann.com 31Reported decision2012#20127 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

Issues it is cited on

section 69b section 115bb section 115b unexplained investment section 115bbe section 115 undisclosed income section 139 section 69a section 69 section 132 section 143(1)

Judgments citing 287 (Delhi), ITO v. Dulari Digital Photo Services (P.) Ltd.

RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1724/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1713/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Assistant Commissioner of Vs. Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Income Tax, Shah, Central Circle-1(3), B-301, Aaryavrat Skies, Ahmedabad Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380015 [PAN No.APUPS9580G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.1724/Ahd/2024 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Rakeshkumar Mahendrakumar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Shah, Income Tax, B-301, Aaryavrat Skies, Central Circle-1(3), Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH , AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed, and the order of the CIT(Appeals) is hereby affirmed in toto

ITA 1713/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,KHANNA vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 175/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.175/CHD/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20 Shri Krishan Kumar, Vs. The DCIT, Prop., M/s Riwaz Jeweller, Central Circle-1, बनाम Karnail Singh Road, Ludhiana Subash Bazar, Khanna 141401 "थायीलेखासं./PAN No.AKRPK5188J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of H…

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 628/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

…r has rightly assessed the same as 'unexplained income' under section 68 of the IT. Act, 1961 and in that case set off cannot be given. This proposition is supported by the case law of ITO, Ward-V(1), Ludhiana vs. Dulari Digital Photo Services (P) Ltd. (2012) 24 Taxmann.com 31 (Chd.) relied on by the Assessing Officer. Further, in the case of the same has been upheld. “The Assessing Officer has given detailed reasons to establish the bogus and sham nature of the transactions of the assessee with 'S'. There is no material on record to rebut the specific finding recorded by the Assessing Officer in this behalf. In…