Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

102 TTJ 977Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#21857 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 1961Section 69A

Judgments citing Ashok Chaddha v. ITO

A, C.I.T. Central Cir.- 2(2), Nagpur vs. Smt. Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 289/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…earned Authorised Representative for the assessee, the following case laws have been relied upon:– i) Haroon Mohd. Unni v/s ITO, ΙΤΑ no.463/Μum./2012) (Mum. Trib.); ii) Ashok Chaddha v/s ITO, [2011] 202 Taxman 395 (Del.); iii) DCIT v/s Arjundas Kalani [2006] 102 TTJ 977; iv) Smt. Meena Syal v/s ACIT, [1999] 70 ITD 62; and v) Shri Kishanchand Uttamchandani v/s DCIT ITA no.77/Mum./2007 (Mum.Trib.). 15. The CBDT Instruction no, 1916 dated 11/05/1994 lays down the guide lines for seizure of gold jewellery during search. It has been directed by the Board that in the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold…

Smt Rajkumari Dharampal Agrawal, Nagpur vs. A, C.I.T Cent Cir. 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 235/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…earned Authorised Representative for the assessee, the following case laws have been relied upon:– i) Haroon Mohd. Unni v/s ITO, ΙΤΑ no.463/Μum./2012) (Mum. Trib.); ii) Ashok Chaddha v/s ITO, [2011] 202 Taxman 395 (Del.); iii) DCIT v/s Arjundas Kalani [2006] 102 TTJ 977; iv) Smt. Meena Syal v/s ACIT, [1999] 70 ITD 62; and v) Shri Kishanchand Uttamchandani v/s DCIT ITA no.77/Mum./2007 (Mum.Trib.). 15. The CBDT Instruction no, 1916 dated 11/05/1994 lays down the guide lines for seizure of gold jewellery during search. It has been directed by the Board that in the case of a person not assessed to wealth tax, gold…

M/S. Alankar Jewellwer, Vidisha vs. The ACIT- II, Vidisha

In the result, appeal filed by the assessees in

ITA 838/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2016-17 M/S. Alankar Jewellers Acit-Ii Nikasha Road, Vidisha Bhopal बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D It(Ss)A No.205/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2016-17 Acit-Ii M/S. Alankar Jewellers Bhopal Nikasha Road, Vidisha बनाम/ Vidisha Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aavfa1527D Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Respondent By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad:

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 44ASection 69B

…ions are relied:- a. Subhash Agarwal v ACIT (IT-455 /IND/2013) Indore bench It has been held that “change in jewelry found vis a vis declared to the department- gold found less- diamonds found more- can be set off against each other”. b. Arjundas Kalwani, 102 TTJ 977 (Jodhpur Bench) It has been held that simply because the items of the ornaments do not tally with the items shown in the inventory prepared at the time of search and the assessee could not lead evidence of conversion or remaking of jewellery, it cannot be said that jewellery to this extent was unexplained”. c. Rakesh R. Purohit, 14 DTR 414 (…

Ashok Chaddha v. ITO (102 TTJ 977) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax