78 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 1TR 344 (Pat.); (iii) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi

362 ITR 338High Court2014#17751 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)speaking order section 68 section 148 section 147 person section 143(3)interest section 14 india

Judgments citing 78 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 1TR 344 (Pat.); (iii) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi

Claymine Microns LLP, Wankaner vs. Principal CIT 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 216/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 216/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns Llp Vs. Pcit Survey No. 59 At Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 Pan/Gir No.: Aamfc4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar राज" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 216/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Claymine Microns LLP Vs. PCIT Survey No. 59 at Ratavirda, Nr. Capron Aayakar Bhawan, Race Course Ceramic Sartanpar Road, Wankaner, Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat - Gujarat - 363641 360001 PAN/GIR No.: AAMFC4286C (Assessee) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, AR राज" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16/02/2026…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…t upon it as held in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (1976) 103 1TR 344 (Pat.); (iii) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune); (iv) M/s. Odedara Construction 362 ITR 338 (Gujarat). Accordingly, I hereby conclude that no addition u/s 68 was warranted in respect of the share application money/share premium of Rs.1,20,00,000/- received by the appellant ofInc COmpany from the four investor companies, viz., Jeenma Business Pvt. Ltd., Jeenma com Merchants P. Ltd., Sahal Traders P. Ltd., and Galaxy Abasan Pvt. Ltd. Ther…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Truform Techno Products Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

M/S. Shivam Developers, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 226/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shivam Developers The Dy.Cit Plot No.C/1, 1301, Phase-I Vs Mehsana Circle Gidc, Chhatral, Tal.Kalol Mehsana Dist. Gandhinagar – 382 229 Pan: Abwfs 4815 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar & Shri Daivat Bhatt, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthe Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S.Shivam Developers Vs. Dcit Mehsana Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, AR &For Respondent: Shri Ashesh R. Rewar, Sr.DR

Section 148Section 69C

…he partner i.e. Dhawal B. Patel has no creditworthiness. 11.3. The assessee, before Ld.CIT(A), relied upon the judgements of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (ITR No.241 of 1993) and Odedara Construction reported at 362 ITR 338. The Ld.CIT(A) reproduced the part of later decision and rejected the applicability of these judgements stating that the Hon’ble High Court in the above-referred case noted that the partners were capable of introducing the capital and making deposits with the partnership firm. 11.4. While doing so, Ld.CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the…

M/S. Sudeep Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, A.R

Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 80G

…Zala Rs.4 Lakhs & (c) Sunil N. Parikh Rs.30 Lakhs. It is seen that the amount of capital has been introduced through banking channels. In the wake of such facts, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Odedara Construction (2014) 362 ITR 338 (Guj) would squarely apply. Hence, deeming fiction created by Section 68 of the Act could not be invoked in the hands of the assessee-partnership firm. We thus reverse the action of the lower authorities and direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs.44 Lakhs on this score. 6.4 Disallowance of expenses of Rs.8,67,610/- and disallowance of expens…