Amitabh Bansal v. ITO

175 ITD 401Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2019#9012 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Judgments citing Amitabh Bansal v. ITO

SHAILESH CHHAGANLAL HARIA SHAH,BHIWANDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result,\nground no

ITA 1177/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

…ion, the Id. AR on the issue of not\nallowing cross examination relied upon the following decision:\n❖ Mr. Hoshang Jamshed Mohta vs ITO (ITA No. No. 36/Mum/2023) dated\n31.03.2023,\n❖ Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs ITO (128 TTJ 36).,\nAmitabh Bansal vs ITO (175 ITD 401),\nACIT vs Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj (ITA No. 5661/Mum/2024) dated 24.01.2025.\n7. On the issue of validity of reopening mainly relied on the decision of Delhi\nHigh Court in PCIT vs N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) and the decision of the\nHon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Saraswat Co-operative Bank vs\nACIT (166 taxmann.com 360).\n8. On the ot…

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…nder section 68 cannot be made if no books of accounts are maintained. Few of them are cited below:  CIT v Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad)  Smt Shanta Devi v. CIT (1988) 37 Taxman 104 (Punj & Har) A  Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019] 102 taxmann.com 229/175 ITD 401 (Delhi- Trib.)  Anand Ram Raitoni v. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gauhati High Court)  ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 143 ITD 0686 (Lucknow Tribunal)  Babbal Bhatia v. ITO (2018) (Delhi ITAT)  Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 (SC)  CIT v. Ms Mayavati 338 ITR 563 (Delhi High Court)  Smt Mansi Mahendra Pitkar 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai Trib)  Smt…

NARESH BATRA,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 281/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, By The Impugned Order, The Appeal Was Dismissed.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Court); • Baladin ram vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (Supreme Court); • CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay High Court); • Sh. Om Prakash vs. ITO, ITA No.1325/Del/2011, Date of decision: 11.08.2016 (Delhi – Trib.); • Amitabh Bansal vs. ITO [2019] 175 ITD 401 (Delhi – Trib.); & • Dr. Vishan Swqaroop Gupta, vs. ITO, ITA No. 13/JP/2020, Date of decision: 28.01.2021. 6. Without prejudice, he submitted, assessee is running a cyber cafe. He submitted, assessee was sanctioned loan of Rs.12,00,000, which was disbursed to assessee during the financial year 2010-11. He submitted, since, assessee could not util…

SANDEEP KUMAR,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD -03, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3887/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
Section 68

…High Court); • Baladin ram vs. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (Supreme Court); • CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 67 [Bombay High Court]; • Sh. Om Prakash vs. ITO, ITA No.1325/Del/2011, Date of decision: 11.08.2016 (Delhi – Trib.); • Amitabh Bansal vs ITO [2019] 175 ITD 401 (Delhi – Trib.). 5 ITA No. 3887/Del./2019 5. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). Further, he submitted, assessee’s contention that no addition under Section 68 of the Act can be made, basis bank statement, is unacceptable in view of the decision…

SRI SUKHAMAYA DAS,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 232/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, DR
Section 68Section 80C

…adin Ram, vs CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) ii) Anandram Raitani vs CIT, 223 ITR 544 (Gau) iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau)™ iv) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs ITO, 73 Taxman.com 68. v) Mehul vs Vyas vs ITO, 80 Taxman.com 311 vi) Amitabh Bansal vs ITO, 175 ITD 401 (Del) vii) CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi, (1983) 53 company cases 400 (Bom) 10. Ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed miserably to furnish necessary documents either before the AO or before the ld CIT(A), therefore, the addition is justified and do not call for any interference. Ld D.R. submitted that invoking of section 68 as alleged by ld A.…

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2409/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2407/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2406/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKILLIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2825/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2411/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2410/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2408/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

…nt’ observed by the Hon’ble court is with reference to the general and accounting principles and hence 52 I.TA. Nos.2406 to 2411 & 2825/Chny/2019 applicable for all provisions of the Act. Similarly, Delhi Tribunal, in the case of Amitabh Bansal v. ITO (2019)(175 ITD 401) (Deihi- Trib.), has held that “Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid”. The tribunal also observed that a mere credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer cannot be loosely called as books of account under section 68 of the Act. 22. In this case, the A…