What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be invoked for additions of cash credits found solely in a bank passbook, as a passbook maintained by the bank is not considered a 'book of the assessee' for the purpose of this section, especially when the assessee does not maintain their own books of account.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi?

237 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 148, Section 250.

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67)

Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrad -4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…ed the action of AD under Section 68. It is now setelled that S.68 is not applicable to the deposits in the bank account. Hence Appellate authority has wrongly applied deeming provisions of Section 68 to confirm the additions. PI. refer CIT,Poona Vs Bhaichand 141 ITR 67(Bomb). 28.It is most respectfully submitted that both the lower authorities failed to consider the legal decisions rendered in this regard . CIT (A) in very summary manner disregarded the decision of Allahabad High court in CIT Vs Intezar Ali . (Appeal No.162 of 2013) which is aptly applicable in the petitioners case. Considering hierarchy of judi…

Shri Tusharbhai Manshukhbhai Desai, Rajkot vs. The ITO-Ward 1(1)(5), Rajkot

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

ITA 391/RJT/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot13 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Tusharbhai The ITO, Mahasukhlal Desai, Ward-1(1)(5), M/s. Unique Engineers, Vs Rajkot 2-Navalnagar, Rajkot (Respondent) PAN: AAATS9403R (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.R. Revenue by: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 29-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 13-07-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal arises from order of the Ld. CIT (A)-1, Rajkot dated 04-09-2018, in proceedings under section1…

ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 204/NAG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

…nk pass books cannot be treated as cash credits in the books of the assessee and section 68 has no application at all on the face of it in those cases. Reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhaichand Gandhi reported in 141 ITR 67 (1983). Even the entries of credits in pass books, on account of sale proceeds of shares, are duly explained with voluminous evidence as referred to above and the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. Assessees of the group have sold the shares of companies, belonging to them through various brokers and sale proceeds are received fro…

Narendra Chandubhai Rafaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(8), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 103/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri ParimalSinh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 271Section 271BSection 44ASection 68

…d rightly deleted the addition made on such premise. It is pertinent to mention here that bank pass book, profit & loss account and balance sheet cannot be considered as books of account. The Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67/[1982] 11 Taxman 59 has considered this issue, wherein it has been held that the pass book supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent's account in the books maintained by the bank. It is not as if the pass book is maintained by the bank as the agent of the constituent nor can it be said that the pass book is maintain…

Shri Ashit Kumar Dey, Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai (Accountantmember) I.T.A. No. 119/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Ashit Kumar Dey The Income Tax Officer Uttam Kumar Dey, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Fish Market, Sanjay Behind Khankar Market,Jagdalpur, Talkies,Civil Lines, Bastar - 494 001 Jagdalpur(C.G.) Pan No. Ajxpd4157D (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. N. Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. N. Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…credit in his books of account, therefore, the provisions of Sec. 68 on the said count itself would not stand triggered. Our aforesaid conviction is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay). In its aforesaid order the Hon’ble High Court had held, that when monies are deposited in a bank, then, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of a debtor and creditor and not as that of a trustee and a beneficiary. Applying the aforesaid principle, it was therein observed, that a passbook supplie…

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The ACIT Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) PAN No.:BORPT 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order d…

Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 153/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The ACIT Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) PAN No.:BIAPT 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orde…

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 131Section 68

…iew of the law. 5. Books of accounts must be of assessee himself and not of any other assessee (In Smt Shanta Devi v. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H)) and Bank Pass book is not books of account for the purpose of Section 68 (In CIT, Poona v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Born.) but the additions of Rs.41,35,000-00 were made based on cash credit entries in my bank account and not my books of accounts. And hence the additions made are not correct in view of the law. And the Assessing Office would have used her quasi-judicial powers u/s 131 to compelling the witness or other party Ms. Classic Auto Motives to attend…

Shri Himanshu L. Shethia (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2686/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Himanshu L. Shethia (Huf) Ito, Ward-5(3)(4) Prop: Himanshu Fabrics Vs Ahmedabad. 524, New Cloth Market O/S Raipur Gate, Raipur Ahmedabad 380002. (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…e peak or gross profit has been offered as income. It was 9 further pleaded that the AO erred in treating the cash deposits in OBC Bank account as unexplained cash credit, and relied upon Bombay High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs., Bhaichand H. Gandhi, 141 ITR 67 wherein it has been held that where money are deposited in a bank, the relationship that is constituted between the banker and the customer is one of the debtor and creditor and not of trustee and beneficiary. The passbook supplied by the bank to its constituent is only a copy of the constituent’s account in the books maintained by the bank. It is…

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

…tisfaction 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 earlier agreed with the assessee that only 40% of such expenditure is d…

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

…he 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 deposits from those persons whose list has been given in the order of Assessing Officer. He has revealed those names from the Bank account of the Appellant…

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

…also raised two additional grounds as under:- “(i) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect to credit in bank account disregarding the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom) in which it is held that "The pass book supplied by the back to the assessee could not be regarded as a book of the assessee that is a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions" Judgments relied CIT v/s Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitka v/s ITO (ITA No. 4223/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2016. (ii) Ld. CI…

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

…also raised two additional grounds as under:- “(i) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect to credit in bank account disregarding the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom) in which it is held that "The pass book supplied by the back to the assessee could not be regarded as a book of the assessee that is a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions" Judgments relied CIT v/s Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitka v/s ITO (ITA No. 4223/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2016. (ii) Ld. CI…

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

…also raised two additional grounds as under:- “(i) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect to credit in bank account disregarding the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom) in which it is held that "The pass book supplied by the back to the assessee could not be regarded as a book of the assessee that is a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions" Judgments relied CIT v/s Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitka v/s ITO (ITA No. 4223/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2016. (ii) Ld. CI…

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

…also raised two additional grounds as under:- “(i) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect to credit in bank account disregarding the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom) in which it is held that "The pass book supplied by the back to the assessee could not be regarded as a book of the assessee that is a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions" Judgments relied CIT v/s Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitka v/s ITO (ITA No. 4223/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2016. (ii) Ld. CI…

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

…also raised two additional grounds as under:- “(i) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 in respect to credit in bank account disregarding the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom) in which it is held that "The pass book supplied by the back to the assessee could not be regarded as a book of the assessee that is a book maintained by assessee or under his instructions" Judgments relied CIT v/s Bhaichand H Gandhi (141 ITR 67)(Bom) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitka v/s ITO (ITA No. 4223/Mum/2015 dated 12.08.2016. (ii) Ld. CI…

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 66/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.64 to 66/Ind/2021 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT Central-II, Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, बनाम/ Indore Mhow Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUPA7002J Appellant by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA ITA No.328 to 330/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri Rakesh Kumar DCIT Central-II, बनाम/ Agrawal, Mhow Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUP…

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 65/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.64 to 66/Ind/2021 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT Central-II, Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, बनाम/ Indore Mhow Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUPA7002J Appellant by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA ITA No.328 to 330/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri Rakesh Kumar DCIT Central-II, बनाम/ Agrawal, Mhow Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUP…

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 64/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING ITA No.64 to 66/Ind/2021 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 DCIT Central-II, Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, बनाम/ Indore Mhow Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUPA7002J Appellant by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR Respondent by Shri Anil Kamal Garg, CA ITA No.328 to 330/Ind/2020 Assessment Year:2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri Rakesh Kumar DCIT Central-II, बनाम/ Agrawal, Mhow Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AGUP…

M/S Nlin Traders Pvt Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) I.T.A. No. 195/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 196/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2012-13) Vs. DCIT-13(1)(1) M/s. Nalin Traders Pvt. Ltd. R-724, Nisal House, behind Room No. 218 Janta Vidyalaya At Post Lavit 2nd Floor Nasik, Maharashtra-422502. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN : AAACN2113L Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Varun Sharma Department by Shri Abhiram Karthikeyan Date of Hearing 15.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 22 .02.2022 O R D E R These are appeals by the assessee against respective orders of learned CIT(A) for…

CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

What is CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi

Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrad -4(4), Nagpur

Shri Tusharbhai Manshukhbhai Desai, Rajkot vs. The ITO-Ward 1(1)(5), Rajkot

ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka, Nagpur

Narendra Chandubhai Rafaliya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(8), Ahmedabad

Shri Ashit Kumar Dey, Jagdalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(2), Bangalore

Shri Himanshu L. Shethia (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

M/S Nlin Traders Pvt Ltd., Nashik vs. DCIT 13 (1)(1), Mumbai