ACIT v. Kamlakar Moghe (

378 ITR 561High Court2015#15743 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 270ASection 54EC

Judgments citing ACIT v. Kamlakar Moghe (

Kannaki, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1972/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

…4EC Bonds should be condoned and deduction shall not be disallowed especially when the Bonds were not available in the market during the period of 6 months from the date of transfer. A) [2018] 401 ITR 242 (Karnataka) Dr.(Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT b) [2015] 378 ITR 561 (Bombay) KamlakarMoghe v. ACIT, Nagpur c) [2014] 49 taxman.com 202 (Madras) CIT v. Akbar Ali Dhala d) [2012] 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.) CIT v. Cello Plast. In this vice, the AO is directed to verify the factual matrix and allow deduction claimed u/s 54EC of the Act. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed. 12. The Revenue has not f…

Kannaki, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1970/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1972 & 1970/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramachandran, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 270ASection 54E

…4EC Bonds should be condoned and deduction shall not be disallowed especially when the Bonds were not available in the market during the period of 6 months from the date of transfer. A) [2018] 401 ITR 242 (Karnataka) Dr.(Smt.) Sujatha Ramesh v. CBDT b) [2015] 378 ITR 561 (Bombay) KamlakarMoghe v. ACIT, Nagpur c) [2014] 49 taxman.com 202 (Madras) CIT v. Akbar Ali Dhala d) [2012] 24 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.) CIT v. Cello Plast. In this vice, the AO is directed to verify the factual matrix and allow deduction claimed u/s 54EC of the Act. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed. 12. The Revenue has not f…

Shalini Anand Murthy, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2404/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri.Srinivas S KotaFor Respondent: Shri Satyapal Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 54F

…(Bangalore Tribunal) T Shiva Kumar vs ITO 9158 ITD 329 (Bangalore Tribunal) 2. Satish Chandra Gupta vs AO (54 ITD 508) (Delhi Satish Chandra Gupta vs AO (54 ITD 508) (Delhi Satish Chandra Gupta vs AO (54 ITD 508) (Delhi Tribunal) 3. ACIT vs Kamlakar Moghe (378 ITR 561)(Bom.HC) vs Kamlakar Moghe (378 ITR 561)(Bom.HC) vs Kamlakar Moghe (378 ITR 561)(Bom.HC) 4. Sunil Kumar Saha vs ITO (156 ITD 1)(Kol.T Sunil Kumar Saha vs ITO (156 ITD 1)(Kol.T Sunil Kumar Saha vs ITO (156 ITD 1)(Kol.Trib) (iv) The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assess…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Constructors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3754/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…n the landed AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (a) On the issue of cross examination; (i) Kishin Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169 of 2017(Del), ITA N0.3754, 3755,3756 & 2948/M/2017 Shreedham Cons…

Shreedham Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Kalyan

ITA 2948/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…n the landed AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (a) On the issue of cross examination; (i) Kishin Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT Vs Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd ITA No. 169 of 2017(Del), ITA N0.3754, 3755,3756 & 2948/M/2017 Shreedham Cons…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. K. Ashok Kumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 6665/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar YadavFor Respondent: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala
Section 133ASection 69

…Judgement of Goolamally Hasanjee ITAT ”G” Bench, Mumbai. vi) Judgement of Ganpatraj A Sanghavi ITAT “G” Bench, Mumbai. vii) Judgement of Adamji & Co. ITAT “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. viii) Judgement of H.R. Mehta “Bombay High Court” Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2001-378 ITR 561. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referred to the decision of ITAT ‘A’ Bench Mumbai in the case of Ashok Talreja supra. He submitted that the above case relates to a sister concern of the assessee operating from the common address. That the issue was identical and was related to same search with relation to the suppliers. He submitted tha…

ACIT v. Kamlakar Moghe ( (378 ITR 561) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax