91 ITR 18 (SC). (iv) Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

39 SOT 379Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#24935 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 131(1A)Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 153C Section 292C

Judgments citing 91 ITR 18 (SC). (iv) Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NUMGAMBAKKAM vs. JAGANNATHAN SEKAT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…ssee. He solely relied on the statement of affidavit filed by the assessee. He solely relied on the statement of 'R' for the addition. The addition was deleted. for the addition. The addition was deleted. 6.3.26 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (Hyd.-Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in the hands of the assessee…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. VISHNU PRAKASH R PUGALIA, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Vishnu Prakash R Pugalia, Circle-1, P. No. 22, Subhash Colony, New Jodhpur. Pali Road, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aadfv 4672 J

…digarh - Trib.) (ii) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) (iii) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC). (iv) Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 43 SOT 651 (Mum.) (v) Ramakrishnaiah vs. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (HYD.) (vi) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs ACIT — [2005] 97 ITD 361 (AHD.) He has further submitted that from the evidence and documents submitted during the assessment proceedings it is established that the alleged unaccounted work receipt and unaccounted expenses are duly been recorded in the regular books of account and the partner has admitted due t…

M/S VIKRAM TRADERS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 538/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.538/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S. Vikram Traders, Subramanyapura, Bangalore 560 061 .. Appellant Pan : Aaafv7242B V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -10(1), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. C. Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 26.08.2015 Pronounced On : 04.09.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 41(1)

…y provisions of the Act. Apart from the citations placed before the Ld. CIT (A), reliance was also placed on the following : ITA.538/Bang/2014 Page - 5 • Digital Electronics Ltd v. ACIT– ITA No.8646/Mum/2010, dt.21.06.2013 • B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [(2010) 39 SOT 379] • Govindbhai C. Patel v. DCIT [(2010) 1 ITR (Trib) 34] Again as per the Ld. AR, even presuming that there was a business venture, the business itself had never taken off and hence the receipt of compensation by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Khanna and Annadhanam v. CIT [(2013) 351 ITR 0110] was receipt of a ca…