Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 144, Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148.

Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax?

50 judgments on BharatTax cite Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax (85 Taxmann.com 306), spanning 2018 to 2025.

85 Taxmann.com 306High Court2017#2310 most cited

What is Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

A bank passbook is considered 'books of the assessee' under section 2(12A) of the Income Tax Act. This allows additions under section 68 for unexplained cash credits found in the passbook, irrespective of whether the assessee maintains other formal books of account.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. CIT · bank passbook · books of assessee · section 2(12A) · section 68 · cash credit · unexplained cash deposit · addition without books of account · unexplained money · credit entries

Also reported as

399 ITR 256250 Taxmann 362

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 144 Section 153A Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 292C Section 131

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)section 127(2)(a)peak credit theory section 124(3)(a)section 106 section 66 section 124(3)section 113 section 127(2)summons under section 131 section 114 section 124

Judgments citing Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Vaibhav Pankaj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 398/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Section 250Section 35ASection 68

…Vaibhav Pankaj Shah 2 ITA No. 398/MUM/2024 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण COME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals), Mumbai has erred in passing the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 under section 250 of the Act without providing personal hearing to the appellant thereby grossly violating the principles of Natural Justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), CIT (Appeals), Mumbai has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 54,50,000/- being cash d…

Shri Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 317/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 317/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shri Harsh Agarwal बनाम The DCIT, 421 Harsh Villa, Mahaveer Vs. Jaipur Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AHLPA 7505 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : S…

Neena Kailas Jadhav, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 901/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.901/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 10(3)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.901/PUN/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Neena Kailas Jadhav, Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vasan Vihar Row House Society, Aurangabad Vasant Vihar, Pokhran Road-2, Thane 400 610 Maharashtra PAN : AAFBPJ3950J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 18.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 19.04.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Ce…

Vibrant Shelter Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 285/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.285/PUN./2018 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Vibrant Shelter Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Nagpur – 440 013PAN Circle-13, AACCV9904F 60/61, Praptikar Sadan, C/o. RD Gopalani, Advocate vs. Erandawane, ‘Shital’, Rajnagar, Opp. Zilla Karve Road, Parishad Girls High School, Pune – 411 004 Katol Road, Nagpur. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Hirani For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of Hearing : 06.03.…

Shri Sanjay Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. JCIT, Central Range-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 6140/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sanjay DCIT Central Range-8 (3), Shantilal Jain 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-72, 7, Kalpataru Residency, Maharshi Karve Road, Sion Koliwada Road Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 022 PAN No. AABPJ3761A Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Mr. Rushabh Mehta : Revenue by Mr. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12/10/2022 : Dat…

Jagmohan Singh Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.4 raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 7196/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vranda U Matkarni- Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 7197/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) Jagmohan Singh Arora, 1301/1A, Green Acres CHS, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. PAN: AAAPA8788M ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT-1-(1)(2), Room No. 209, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee by : Ms. Priyanka Jain, Adv. Sh. Aakash Gupta, CA Respondent/Revenue by : Sh. Vranda U Matkarni- Sr. DR Date of hearing : 20/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 25/11/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL,…

Sarika Ashok Satav, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 12(4), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1952/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1952/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…parties claimed as source of the unsecured loans had routed that respective loans through her husband which do not satisfy the test of genuineness and creditworthiness all along. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court in Shri Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. CIT : [2017] 399 ITR 256 (Bom.) holds that an assessee has to reasonably explain the source of such sums leaving aside all technical aspects; including non- maintenance of books. The fact also remains that the impugned addition has been made u/s.68 only which goes against Ivan Sing (supra) ration. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate to uphold the impugned u…

Sangeeta Arun Deshmukh, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Satara

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 172/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.172/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 69

…y books of accounts which forms a mandatory requirement for the same. This latter legal argument also deserves to rejected only once hon’ble jurisdictional high court has decided the very issue in Revenue’s favour in Shri Arunkumar J. Muchhala V/s. CIT (2017) 399 ITR 256 (Bom.) that impugned additions would not be deleted for this precise reason alone once the assessee concerned fails to explain source of unexplained sums in issue. Rejected accordingly. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 6. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 4th d…

Amit Lalit Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per above direction

ITA 2009/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Amit Lalit Kapoor The Income Tax Officer, B–701, Supreme –19, Ward–16(1)(1), Lokhandwala, 3R D Cross Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai–400 020 Mumbai–400 061 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apqpk1601N

For Appellant: Shri Ashvini Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Bhaskaran, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)Section 68

…deposited in three bank accounts which could not be explained to the satisfaction of the ld AO. We do not find any infirmity in application section 68 on such sums in view of the decision of Honourable Bombay high court in case of Arunkumar J Muchalla V CIT [399 ITR 256] where in the decision of CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bom) is considered at para no 7 of the order. Amit Lalit Kapoor; A.Y. 13–14 011. Firstly, we find that the learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the expenditure of ₹47,85,384/- out of the total expenditure of ₹51,15,384/-. In the order itself, the learned Assessing Officer…

Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chavan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1061/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143Section 24Section 250Section 68

…n the hands of the assessee. 13. We find that subsequent to the aforesaid decision in Mehul V Vyas (supra), which was rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on 07/04/2017, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. CIT: [2017] 399 ITR 256 (Bombay), vide judgment dated 24/08/2017, after considering the ratio laid down in the earlier decision in CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay), observed as under: “11. The facts as emerged before the Assessing Officer appears to be not in dispute. The Appellant has not denied that he has received the said loan amount / cash d…

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ITA No. 702/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) ITA No. 704/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer, Nayan Arvind Lalan Ward-24(1)(5) R.No. 51, 2nd Floor, Jiya Mausum R. No. 109, 1st Floor, Piramal Vs. Chawl, N.M. Joshi Marg, Lower Chabmers, Parel, Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ACDPL5255B Assessee by : Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, AR Revenue by : Shri C.T. Mathews, DR Date of hearing: 20.04.2022 28.04.2022 Date of pronouncement : O R D E R PER…

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

Nayan Arvind Lalan, Mumbai vs. ITO, 24(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, all these five appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruchi M Rathod, ARFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO - 26(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am Shri Manish Manila Gosar Huf Ito-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent By : Ms. Usha Shrote Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitin FuriaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote

Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM Shri Manish Manila Gosar HUF ITO-26(2)(2) N. M. Associates, 1, Tarlika, Mumbai-400 051 Ground Floor, 216, Vs. Sir Bhalchandra Road, Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 PAN/GIR No. AAFHM 2740 A (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Nitin Furia Respondent by : Ms. Usha Shrote Date of Hearing : 04.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 24.10.20…

J. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7203/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…1 ITA 7203/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. No.7203 /Mum/2019 (Assessment year 2012-13) J Builders Pvt Ltd vs Income-tax Officer 10(2)(1), Mumbai Maneesha, 7, Anand Nagar Swami Nityanand Marg Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069 PAN : AABCJ0679G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue represented by Shri Anil Sathe Assessee represented by Shri S.N. Kabra Date of hearing 05-01-2022 Date of pronouncement 20-01-2022 O R D E R Per O.P. Kant (AM) : This appeal by the assessee is directed against orde…

Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Khatwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 533/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 533/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADRPK 6555 C Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lq…

Shri. Palimar Gopal Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7335/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh

Section 147Section 69B

…e mother of the assessee, on the ground that the vouchers were not produced. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT (A) upheld the order of assessing officer. He has, inter alia, referred to Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Arun Kumar Muchala 399 ITR 256. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has filed appeal before us. 4. We have heard the learned departmental representative. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the same being a stay granted matter. 6. Upon careful consideration we note that the revenue authorities are convinced about the source of deposit of about a sum of…

Sudhir Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1741/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AALPJ5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAGPJ6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, ITO, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. WARD : 25 (1), Pitampura, NEW DELHI – 34 NEW DELHI (PAN: ADRPJ4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (HUF), ITO, 158, Rajdhani…