324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT

143 ITR 814Reported decision1983#22556 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37Section 115BBESection 132Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 260section 260asection 30mercantile system of accountingcommercial expediencyprofits and gains of business or professionsection 145(3)section 145capital expendituresection 37(1)income-tax officerfirst appeal

Judgments citing 324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT

Radhakishan Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ITR 71 (Raj.)), CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi [2013] 33 taxmann.com 315/216 Taxman 226 (Raj.), CST v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar [1996] 11 SCC 648; CIT v. Jas Jack Elegence Exports [2010] 324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 814 (M.P.) and Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have observed that t…

Radhakishna Beniwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ITR 71 (Raj.)), CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi [2013] 33 taxmann.com 315/216 Taxman 226 (Raj.), CST v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar [1996] 11 SCC 648; CIT v. Jas Jack Elegence Exports [2010] 324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 814 (M.P.) and Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have observed that t…

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

…ITR 71 (Raj.)), CIT v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi [2013] 33 taxmann.com 315/216 Taxman 226 (Raj.), CST v. Girja Shanker Awanish Kumar [1996] 11 SCC 648; CIT v. Jas Jack Elegence Exports [2010] 324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 814 (M.P.) and Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman and Bros. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 406/76 Taxman 106 (All.). 18. This court in the case of CIT v. Inani Marbles (P.) Ltd. [2009] 316 ITR 125/[2008] 175 Taxman 56 (Raj.) and also the Delhi High Court in the case of Action Electricals v. Dy. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188/[2003] 132 Taxman 640 have 27 M/s Kanak V…

324 ITR 95/191 Taxman 386 (Delhi), Arya Confectionery Works v. CIT (143 ITR 814) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax