66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v. ACIT

72 ITD 155Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#18300 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40(A)(3)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 147section 143(3)businessdocument

Judgments citing 66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v. ACIT

ACIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. ROSHNI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4471/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…far as taxing of income is concerned and thereafter partly reject the statement so far as the allowance of expenditure is concerned. According to it, this approach is impermissible in law for which it referred to the decisions of Rajrani Gupta vs. DCIT [2000] 72 ITD 155 (Mum) affirmed in [2013] 257 CTR 47 (Bom) by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. 15. Ld. CIT(A) objectively considered the detailed submissions made by the assessee and took note of several judicial precedents relied upon to arrive at the conclusion that reasonable profit has to be estimated on M/s. Roshni Enterprises AYs 2021-22, 20…

ACIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. ROSHNI ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 Assistant Commissioner Vs Roshni Enterprises Of Income Tax Central 519, The Great Eastern Circle 6(1), Mumbai Gallaria, Sector 04, Bkc, Mumbai Nerul 400706. Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Mumbai 400051. Pan: Aasfr6639Q Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-54, Mumbai Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1065343505(1), Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065343031(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1065342652(1), Dated 03.06.2024, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Dcit, Central Circle 6(1), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 27.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22, Dated M/S. Roshni Enterprises Ays 2021-22, 2019-20 & 2018-19 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2019-20 & Dated 31.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…far as taxing of income is concerned and thereafter partly reject the statement so far as the allowance of expenditure is concerned. According to it, this approach is impermissible in law for which it referred to the decisions of Rajrani Gupta vs. DCIT [2000] 72 ITD 155 (Mum) affirmed in [2013] 257 CTR 47 (Bom) by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. 15. Ld. CIT(A) objectively considered the detailed submissions made by the assessee and took note of several judicial precedents relied upon to arrive at the conclusion that reasonable profit has to be estimated on M/s. Roshni Enterprises AYs 2021-22, 20…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJEEV KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3740/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…02 (Chd) Satpal Singh v ACIT b) 67 TTJ 411 (Chd) Rameshwar Lal Ahuja v ACIT c) 67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v ACIT d) 66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v ACIT e) 37 ITD 96 [Jpr] Manohar Lal v ITO f) 69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v ACIT g) 72 ITD 155 (Mum) Smt Raja Rani Gupta v ACIT h) 70 TTJ 801 (Ahd) ITO v Manilal S Dave 12.5. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the submission of the AR. The argument that income of Mrs. Rekha Gupta is not income of appellant is not tenable, keeping in view the statement of Mrs. Rekha Gupta and, appellant. However as I have held above that asse…

SH. SANJEEV KUMAR,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…02 (Chd) Satpal Singh v ACIT b) 67 TTJ 411 (Chd) Rameshwar Lal Ahuja v ACIT c) 67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v ACIT d) 66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v ACIT e) 37 ITD 96 [Jpr] Manohar Lal v ITO f) 69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v ACIT g) 72 ITD 155 (Mum) Smt Raja Rani Gupta v ACIT h) 70 TTJ 801 (Ahd) ITO v Manilal S Dave 12.5. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the submission of the AR. The argument that income of Mrs. Rekha Gupta is not income of appellant is not tenable, keeping in view the statement of Mrs. Rekha Gupta and, appellant. However as I have held above that asse…

JYPORE MANUFATURING JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), JAIPUR

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT -DR
Section 153ASection 153C

…ib) (vi) Sukh Ram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 99 ITD 227 (Ahd.) (vii) Anand Autoride ltd. vs. Jt. CIT (2006) 99 ITD 227 (Ahd) (viii) Kantilal Prabhudas Patel vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 93 ITD 117) (Indore TM) (ix) Smt. Rajrani Gupta vs DCIT (2000) 72 ITD 155 (Mum) (x) Dr. R.M.L. Mehrotra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1999) 64 TTJ 259 (All) 2.9 It is further submitted that following judicial precedents have held that incriminating material should be applied in totality and not on piece meal basis to favor the revenue, the seized evidence is to be accepted in 16 M/s. Jypore Manufacturing…