CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam v. State of Sikkim

184 ITR 561Reported decision1990#17130 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144 Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 234B Section 142(1)Section 234A Section 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 251(l)(a)audi alteram partem section 251(2)section 246 best judgment assessment section 246a section 251 escapement of income section 250(6)section 24 commissioner (appeals)speaking order

Judgments citing CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam v. State of Sikkim

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…(1958) 33 ITR 843 (Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga Prasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR 27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530, 553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker.)]. In making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does not possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure he likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles he should be guided by rules of justice, equity and good conscience [Abdul Qayum & Co., Vs. CIT, (1933) 1 ITR 375, 378 (Oudh)].…

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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

ITA 1294/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1156/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 234CSection 234DSection 244ASection 45(3)

…58) 33 ITR 843\n(Pat); Mohanlal Mahribal Vs. CIT, (1982) 133 ITR 683 (MP) ; Ganga\nPrasad Sharma Vs. CIT, (1981) 132 ITR 87 (MP) & (1981) 127 ITR\n27 (MO); Balchand Udairam Vs. State of Sikkim, (1989) 180 ITR 530,\n553 (Sikkim); K.T. Thomas Vs. Ag ITO, (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565\n(Ker.)].\nIn making a best judgment assessment the Assessing Officer does\nnot possess absolutely arbitrary authority to assessee at any figure\nhe likes and that although he is not bound by strict judicial principles\nhe should be guided by rules of justice, equity and good conscience\n[Abdul Qayum & Co., Vs. CIT, (1933) 1 ITR 375, 378 (Ou…

VIMLADEVI AGROTECH LIMITED ,KOTA vs. ACIT, WD -1(2), KOTA, KOTA

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

ITA 1065/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Chaudhary, JCIT D/R

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. GRANDIOSE JEWELLERY P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to be available material and the circumstances of the case. Brij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar v. Cit (1978) 115/ ITR 524, 530 (SC) AIR 1979 SC 209, K.T. Thomas V. Ag ITO, (1990) 49 Taxman 173 (1989) 78 CTR 97 (1990) 184 ITR 561, 565 (Ker). 3.14 Thus, in the light of above factual as well as legal references and discussions, I have reached to the conclusion that Assessing Officer has made the addition without any evidence or material in possession whereas Appellant has demonstrated the evidences justifying the ratio of N.P. disclosed by it, hence, I find no reason or ba…