69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v. ACIT

70 TTJ 801Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#21298 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 1961Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 143section 14section 143(3)businessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing 69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v. ACIT

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Smt. Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 289/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…." The assessee has argued that decision of Co–ordinate Bench of the 17. Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in Smt. Neena Syal was followed by Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in DCIT v/s Arjun Dass Kalwani, 111 ITD 337 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench, in ITC v/s Manilal S. Dave, 70 TTJ 801. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok 18. Chaddha v/s ITO, in ITA No.274 of 2011 vide order dated 27/07/2011 and by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Haroon Mohd. Unni v/s ITO, ITA no.463/Mum./2012. Considering the arguments of the assessee and the case laws relied 19. upon, gold jewellery to…

Smt Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 235/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…." The assessee has argued that decision of Co–ordinate Bench of the 17. Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, in Smt. Neena Syal was followed by Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, in DCIT v/s Arjun Dass Kalwani, 111 ITD 337 and ITAT Ahmedabad Bench, in ITC v/s Manilal S. Dave, 70 TTJ 801. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ashok 18. Chaddha v/s ITO, in ITA No.274 of 2011 vide order dated 27/07/2011 and by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Haroon Mohd. Unni v/s ITO, ITA no.463/Mum./2012. Considering the arguments of the assessee and the case laws relied 19. upon, gold jewellery to…

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

…) 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 assessee is engaged in the business of giving hawal…

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

…) 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 assessee is engaged in the business of giving hawal…