321 ITR 362(SC), CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

194 ITD 702Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#17157 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 69A Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147 Section 250 Section 10(1)

Issues it is cited on

addition under section 68 double taxation section 115bbe unexplained cash credit section 69a section 68 nfac business

Judgments citing 321 ITR 362(SC), CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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…

ITO, WARD 43(6), DELHI vs. ANKUR JAIN, DELHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3305/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 43(6), Vs. Ankur Jain, New Delhi Bh-4, Delhi East, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Pan: Adkpj1885H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sankalp Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 11SSection 68Section 69A

…ennai - Trib.) Fine Gujaranwala Jewellers v. ITO, |2023| 151 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.) Balwinder Kumar v. ITO, |2023] 102 ITRT) 228 (Amritsar - Trib.) 2 - DCIT v. Roop Fashion, |2022| 98 ITRT) 419 (Chandigarh - Trib.) - Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, |2022| 194 ITD 702 (Bangalore - Trib.) 5.1 It is further submitted that the addition has been made solely on the basis of suspicion and surmises without there being any material to justify the same. as no specific defect has been pointed out in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee which were submitted before the Ld. AO. Therefore, the addition made sole…

LET'S TALK INSTITUTE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WAR-12(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 254(1)Section 68

…made therein will becoming void and ab-initio to support this contention of Ld.AR of the assessee relied on Asst. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362(SC), CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported in 417 ITR 325(SC), Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO reported in 194 ITD 702 (Bangalore Trib.) and Pr.CIT v. Tripati Proteins (P.) Ltd. reported in 165 taxmann.com 175(Guj.). 5. The Ld.AR further submits that he is also raised grounds of appeal against reopening. The re-assessment was made merely for purpose of making enquiry. The assessment is initiated on borrowed satisfaction without making any independent application.…

ANIL KUMAR AHUJA,REWARI vs. ITO,WARD 2,REWARI, REWARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 69A

…enue is dismissed, the cross objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous, hence, dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed." [PB.Pg.No.85 to 88]. Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO. [2022] 194 ITD 702 (Bang.Trib): In this case the Tribunal held as under: Where Assessing Officer made addition under section 68 on account of cash deposited by assessee in its two bank account post demonetization, since said cash deposit was towards assessee's sale proceeds which was already offered to tax by assessee and admitted by revenue as revenue receipt, im…

RAKESH MALHOTRA,,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(4), CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3571/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3571/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…on the following decisions: - 1. CIT Vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (Tax Appeal No.2471 to 2476 of 2009 dated03.07.2012) (Gujarat High Court); 2. M/s Fine Bujranwala Jewellers Vs. ITO (ITA No.1540/Del/2022) dated 27.03.2023; 3. Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO (194 ITD 702); 4. Mansukh K Waghasia Vs. ITO (195 ITD 99); 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. DR further submits that the Assessee has not produced the required information called for by the AO. In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that all the information were produced before the AO and…