300 ITR 98 (MP) Mansuklal Ratanlal Jain (Chopra) v. Union of India (extract

117 DTR 78High Court2015#22112 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing 300 ITR 98 (MP) Mansuklal Ratanlal Jain (Chopra) v. Union of India (extract

Khoobsoorat Fabrics Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 14(3), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

…vs. Baldev Raj Charla reported in 334 ITR 129 (Del) iv) 127 ITR 807 (Kar) S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT (extract at pages 166- 167 of Paper Book) 11 v) 300 ITR 98 (MP) Mansuklal Ratanlal Jain (Chopra) vs. Union of India (extract at page 167 of Paper Book) vi) 117 DTR 78 (Raj) Sind Medical Stores vs. CIT (extract at pages 167- 169of Paper Book) vii) ITA No. 2942/D/2011 dated 26.08.2011 ACIT vs. Sh. Joginder Singh Assessment Year 2005-06 viii) ITA No. 3471/3/2010 dated 19.08.2011 ITO vs. Smt. Neha Jain Assessment Year 2007-08 ix) ITA No.4429/Del/2010 dated 08.08.2013 ITO vs. Smt. Narwada Assessment Year 2009-10 x)…

Shri Shyam Gidwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-1, Jaipur

In the result, the explanation so submitted in support of source of deposit of Rs 6 lacs cannot be accepted and is hereby dismissed

ITA 808/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Add.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…ues(PB 19-20), if considered, leaves a mere sum of Rs. 5,66,100/- which otherwise sourced from the savings of his wife. The ld. CIT (A) is silent on this aspect. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • Sind Medical Stores vs. CIT (2015) 117 DTR 78 (Raj.) • Chetan Gupta vs. ACIT (2013) 144 ITD 344 (Del.) • Smt. Maina Devi v/s ITO (2005) 98 TTJ 21 (JD) • ACIT v/s Ram Gopal Manda (2008) 40 TW 16 (Jd) • Thyarmal Bal Chand 165 ITR 453 (Raj). 30. It was submitted that the AO completely ignored the settled law that u/s 68, 69 etc. only a discretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercis…

Nirajan Lal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the direction herein above

ITA 92/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 148

…ort. He submitted alternatively that the ld. CIT (A) ought to have applied peak credit theory. In support, he has relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court rendered in the cases of Sind 3 Shri Niranjan Lal Saini. Medical Stores vs. CIT (2015) 117 DTR 78 (Raj.), CIT vs. Ishwardass Mutha, 270 ITR 597 (Raj.), judgment of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Purushottam Jhawar (2014) 220 Taxman 74 (AP). The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Mahesh Kumar Jayantilal Vora, 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) in suppo…