30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao v. CIT

107 ITR 379High Court1977#7201 most cited
15

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 115BBESection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 44ABSection 69C

Issues it is cited on

documents seizedsection 139(1)section 153asection 69companybusinessdocument

Judgments citing 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao v. CIT

SHRIKANT SINGHANIA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

ITA 1221/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…TMI 467 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No 124-126/JP/2019 order dated 03-06-2019 (iv) Hon’ble Jaipur ITAT in the case of Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal ITA No 420/JP/2012 dated 26.08.2013 (v) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); (vi) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (vii) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). Ld. AR further submitted that images recovered from mobile are deaf and dumb and most of the images are not properly visible and readable. Most of the images are rough estimation/calculations, undated, unnamed and no proper conclusion can be drawn from these images. These images are incom…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BPTP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…er been discredited in cross-examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so (Ref. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181, 187 (SC), Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); Malwa Knitting Works v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 (MP); Vasanji Ghela & Co. v. CST (197) 40 STC 544, 561 (Bom); Sri Krishna v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All); CIT v. Birbal Khanna & Co. (1983) 33 CTR (MP) 240:Netram Mool Chand v. CST (1984) Tax LR (NOC) 113 (All)). In view of above it is submitted that no addition was called for in regard to the discount recorded in the account of M/s Brijwa…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BPTP LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…er been discredited in cross-examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so (Ref. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181, 187 (SC), Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); Malwa Knitting Works v. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 (MP); Vasanji Ghela & Co. v. CST (197) 40 STC 544, 561 (Bom); Sri Krishna v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All); CIT v. Birbal Khanna & Co. (1983) 33 CTR (MP) 240:Netram Mool Chand v. CST (1984) Tax LR (NOC) 113 (All)). In view of above it is submitted that no addition was called for in regard to the discount recorded in the account of M/s Brijwa…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MAHESHWARI C/O B.P. MUNDRA & CO. CA, MUNDRA HOUSE, 822, A, SHIVAJI NAGAR, CIVIL LINES, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the addition of Rs 13,69,096/- is hereby directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 69B

…are not controverted the deposition should be accepted correct. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 1TR 181 (SC) (i) Dilip Kumar Ray v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1 (Born.); (ii) Malwa Knitting Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 379 (MP) and (iii) Sri Krishna v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 618/13 Taxman 309 (All.). (iv) 5.2 In view of the above the jewellery received from Ajay Maheshwari & considered as unexplained by the AO is not tenable. The addition of Rs.8,95,890 + Rs. 1,44,400 is directed to be deleted. Jewellary claimed to have been received from (Late Sh. Ramswaroop Mahesh…

SHRI ASHISH MAHESHWARI C/O B.P. MUNDRA & CO. CA, MUNDRA HOUSE, 822, A, SHIVAJI NAGAR, CIVIL LINES, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the addition of Rs 13,69,096/- is hereby directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 69B

…are not controverted the deposition should be accepted correct. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 1TR 181 (SC) (i) Dilip Kumar Ray v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1 (Born.); (ii) Malwa Knitting Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 379 (MP) and (iii) Sri Krishna v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 618/13 Taxman 309 (All.). (iv) 5.2 In view of the above the jewellery received from Ajay Maheshwari & considered as unexplained by the AO is not tenable. The addition of Rs.8,95,890 + Rs. 1,44,400 is directed to be deleted. Jewellary claimed to have been received from (Late Sh. Ramswaroop Mahesh…

SHRI DHRUV MAHESHWARI C/O B.P. MUNDRA & CO. CA, MUNDRA HOUSE, 822, A, SHIVAJI NAGAR, CIVIL LINES, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DY.CITI, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the addition of Rs 13,69,096/- is hereby directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri B. P. Mundra (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 69B

…are not controverted the deposition should be accepted correct. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 1TR 181 (SC) (i) Dilip Kumar Ray v. CIT [1974] 94 ITR 1 (Born.); (ii) Malwa Knitting Works v. CIT [1977] 107 ITR 379 (MP) and (iii) Sri Krishna v. CIT [1983] 142 ITR 618/13 Taxman 309 (All.). (iv) 5.2 In view of the above the jewellery received from Ajay Maheshwari & considered as unexplained by the AO is not tenable. The addition of Rs.8,95,890 + Rs. 1,44,400 is directed to be deleted. Jewellary claimed to have been received from (Late Sh. Ramswaroop Mahesh…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tents of affidavits, which are not vague should be accepted correct. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP 73. With regard to addition of Rs. 33,14,580/- as per Ext.-10 Annexure-A, we observe that the assessee gave the following explanation to AO: - “This is rough estimates made regarding Sanganer office renovation expenses. Actually no renovation work was carried out in the office. Further the paper pertaining to the period prior to incorpor…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tents of affidavits, which are not vague should be accepted correct. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP 73. With regard to addition of Rs. 33,14,580/- as per Ext.-10 Annexure-A, we observe that the assessee gave the following explanation to AO: - “This is rough estimates made regarding Sanganer office renovation expenses. Actually no renovation work was carried out in the office. Further the paper pertaining to the period prior to incorpor…

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…tents of affidavits, which are not vague should be accepted correct. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP 73. With regard to addition of Rs. 33,14,580/- as per Ext.-10 Annexure-A, we observe that the assessee gave the following explanation to AO: - “This is rough estimates made regarding Sanganer office renovation expenses. Actually no renovation work was carried out in the office. Further the paper pertaining to the period prior to incorpor…

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ch are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by estimating the GP @ 31% on the alleged unaccounted receip…

30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao v. CIT (107 ITR 379) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax