5. P.M. Abdul Razack V/S ITO (1997) 063 ITD 0398 (Coch-Trib). 6. Giridharilal Goenka v. CIT

200 ITR 490High Court1993#23582 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing 5. P.M. Abdul Razack V/S ITO (1997) 063 ITD 0398 (Coch-Trib). 6. Giridharilal Goenka v. CIT

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

ITA 2/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 30Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…tries (1998) 060 TTJ 0125. 4. Associated Engineering Enterprises V/S CIT (1995) 216 ITR 0366 (Gau-HC). 5. P.M. Abdul Razack V/S ITO (1997) 063 ITD 0398 (Coch-Trib). 6. Giridharilal Goenka V/S CIT (1989) 179 ITR 0122 (Cal. HC). 7. CIT V/s Meghdoot Sales (1993) 200 ITR 490 (Delhi). 8. CIT V/s Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2005) 199 CTR GUJ 350. 9. 9. Avtar Singh guru mukh V/S ITO (1991) 97 CTR (SC) 251. Where in payment made for purchase in cash of stock in trade doesn't amount to expenditure under Compelling/Exceptional circumstance to execute deal and same is allowed. (Copy Enclosed) 4. Disallowances…

B SARAVANAN,TRICHY vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 12(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 721/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40Section 40A(3)Section 69D

…parties out of disclosed sources, 4. The terms of Section 40A(3) are not absolute according to Allahabad High Court (217 ITR 431), which followed 191 ITR 667 SC; other decisions holding so are: i. 167 ITR 139 Raj ii. 179 ITR 122 Cal iii. 191 ITR 667 SC iv. 200 ITR 490 Del v. 216 ITR 366 Gau vi. 225 ITR 57 Gau vii. 240 ITR 902 Gau viii. 265 ITR 121 Guj ix. 298 ITR 349 Raj x. 366 ITR 122 Gau 5. Even though identical Section 69D requires hundi transactions to be had only by A/c payee cheques, 219 ITR 225 AP and 216 ITR 696 Mds have accepted payments made through account payee drafts. For these and other reasons…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SURESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on all the grounds

ITA 4111/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ito, Vs M/S. Suresh Kumar, Ward-52(1), 84/367, Sec-1, Diz Area, New Delhi-110002 Gole Market, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajgpk2729R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 4111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITO, Vs M/s. Suresh Kumar, Ward-52(1), 84/367, Sec-1, DIZ Area, New Delhi-110002 Gole Market, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJGPK2729R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sohail Malik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 09.12.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the l…