Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.). CIT v. Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd.

257 ITR 281High Court2002#12549 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

addition u/s 68 share application money genuineness of the transaction section 131 unexplained cash credit scrutiny assessment assistant commissioner section 68 section 69 transfer section 143 person

Judgments citing Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.). CIT v. Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd.

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…posited with him either in terms of section 68 or on general principle. (v) Kanahiya Lal jangid V/s CIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (Rajasthan high court) In the case of cash credits confirmation and existence of the credit is enough. (vi) CIT V. Heera Lal Chagan Lal 257 ITR 281(Raj.) It has been held that where the identity of the creditor is established and the creditor has confirmed the loan, addition can’t be made. (vii) CIT vs. Chandra Prakash Rana 48 DTR 271 (VIII)CIT vs. Jai Kumar Bakliwal 101 DTR 377 Once the amount was advanced by the creditors by account payee cheques from their respective bank accounts and the…

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1531/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 cuke Oliria Foods and Beverages Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limited, A-130(H) First Floor, Ward 1(2), Jaipur Road No. 9D VKI Area, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACC09015G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv…

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 322/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2018-19 cuke Venkateswara Wires Pvt Ltd., Assistant Commissioner of Vs. E-55, Road No. 5, VKI Area, Income Tax, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCV 5085 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj…

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 282/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

Section 68Section 69C

…herefore sustainable. 4.5 Also kindly refer CIT vs Shree Barkha Synthetics 182 CTR 175 (Raj.), CIT v. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Sarogi Credit Corp. v. CIT 103 ITR 344 (Patna),ACIT v. India Tyre House 72 TTJ 316 (Gau), CIT vs. Heerala Chaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Raj.), CIT vs Ajay Kumar Sharma 259 ITR 240 (Raj.) and Jhalani Timbers v/s CIT (1997) 223 ITR 11 (Gau). Hence the ld CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 1,47,01,596/- u/s 68.’’ 11 DCIT-CIRCLE, BHILWARA VS SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA 2.6 We have carefully considered the rival contentions, the order of the authorities below, the mate…

SHRI GIRIRAJ PRASAD AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 68

…n made by the AO is not justified. He has relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court :- Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 187 Taxman 338 (Raj.). CIT vs. Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd. 20 Taxman.com 441 (Raj.) CIT vs. Heeralal Chaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Raj.) 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the loan creditor has explained the source of cash deposit as withdrawal from the bank on some earlier occasion. However, the nexus of said withdrawal and re-depositing in the bank account was not proved. Therefore, the assessee has failed to explain the source of the loan transaction…

SHRI GIRIRAJ PRASAD AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 781/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri K.C. Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 131Section 68

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

…alary savings. The Identity of the Kaushal Kishore Shrivastava has been establish and the creditor has confirmed the loan, addition was not justify. Reliance is placed on following cases: DCIT V/s Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujrat) CIT V/s HeeralalChaganlal 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) NemichandKothar V/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gawhati)" 6. The Ld. DR placed reliance on the impugned order. 7. Heard. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has filed the income tax return and bank statement before the CIT(A) in the form 6 of additional evidence which was not admitted, stating that none of the conditions in Rule 46 was fu…

PARMANAND K HINDUJA,THANE vs. ACIT CIR 2, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1049/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1049/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Parmanand K. Hinduja, Asst. Comm. Of Income बनाम/ 402, Banswani Tower, Tax – Circle – 2, V. Near Corporation Bank, Mohan Plaza, Ist Floor, Municipal Road, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan (West). Dist. Thane – 401003. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacph9702N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…125 (Delhi) xviii) CIT v. Bedi & Company Pvt. Ltd. 230 ITR 580 (SC) xix) Kirloskar Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ACIT, 67 ITD 504 xx) ACIT v. Govindram Agarwal, 76 ITD 120 (Calcutta) xxi) Mola Bux v. ITO, 51 TTJ 1 (JP) xxii) CIT v. Hiralal Chgagan Lal Tank, 257 ITR 281 (Rajasthan) xxiii) Murlidhar Lahornimal v. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Gujarat) The assessee submitted that the identity , capacity and genuineness of the lender is proved beyond doubt who had given the funds out of their account and the assessee has discharged the onus, hence, no addition should be made of the said loan given by the said San Finance Corp…