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

Additions under Section 68 for cash credits are not sustainable if all relevant information was already available to the Assessing Officer.

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

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (164 ITD 296), spanning 2018 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 115BBE, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (164 ITD 296)

Nilesh Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Indore

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 631/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 44ASection 68

…position reliance is placed on the decisions mentioned below. > Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/141 ITR 67 (Bom.) > Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 80 taxmann.com 311/164 ITD 296 (Mum. - Trib.) > Hon'ble Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT In the case of Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahd. - Trib.) > Hon'ble Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case Amitabh Bansal v. ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi Trib.) 3.5]. In following decisions it has been held that bank pass book or bank statement cannot be regarded as…

Perumal Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(2). Salem, Salem

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

ITA 1830/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Goutami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…ns of section 68 of the Act for deposits is not legally sustainable. The ld.AR relied on the following judicial precedents in support of his argument. - CIT V.Mayawati, 338 ITR 653 (Del) – Hon’ble Delhi High Court - Mehul V.Vyas v.ITO (2017)80 taxmann.com 311/164 ITD 296 (Mum.Trib) :-4-: ITA. No:1830/Chny/2025 7. Further, the ld.AR submitted that the bank passbook alone does not constitute books of account of the assessee which has been upheld by the following judicial precedents. - CIT v.Bhai Chand N.Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) - Smt.Manshi Mahendra Pitkar v.ITO, Thane (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 68 - Smt.Madh…

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 484/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…e, he can treat it as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. A similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Parameswar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 619 (Raj). The ITAT, Mumbai Bench, in the case of Mehul V Vyas Vs. ITO reported in 164 ITD 296 had taken a similar view and held that passbook supplied by a bank is not a books of account maintained by the assessee and thus the addition cannot be made as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has made addition towards cash deposit u/s.68 of the Act, 14 on the basis of bank passbook in our considered view, t…

Dinesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69C

…ra Pitkar v. ITO [2016] 73 taxmann.com 68/160 ITD 605 (Mum. – Trib.) c. Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v. ITO [2018] 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahd.- Trib.) d. Amitabh Bansal v. ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi-Trib.) e. Mehul v. vyas v. ITO [2017] 80 taxmann.com 311/164 ITD 296 (Mum.- Trib.) f. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59/141 ITR 67 (Bom.) Further, Ld. CIT(A) had cited the judgement in case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. ITO [ITA 104/DEL/2015] and Judgement of Bombay High Court in Arunkumar J. Muchhala v. CIT [2017] 85 taxmann.com 306/250 taxman 362/399 ITR 256 (Bom.) stating that Bank pass book is also…

Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3087/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta SamantaraFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 68

…ook of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.” 8. Similar view was taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai), Smt Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai), Asha Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. I.T.A. No. 3087/Mum/2024 Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal 4 99/RPR/22 and Jaipur Bench decision in the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 13/JP/2020. 9. It would be pertinent to refer to SOP issued by CBDT vide order dated 10.01.2018 for a…

Mahesh Subhash Shukla, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3919/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

…y the assessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.” I.T.A. No. 3919/Mum/2024 Mahesh Subhash Shukla 4 9. Similar view was taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai), Smt Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai), Asha Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 99/RPR/22 and Jaipur Bench decision in the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 13/JP/2020. 10. It would be pertinent to refer to SOP issued by CBDT vide order dated 10.01.2018 for applying the provision of Section 68 of the Act and in…

Rahul Sharma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 245/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 245/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rahul Sharma Saraswati Floor Mill Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Cccps3530F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Dolly Keshwani &For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…the same was liable to be vacated on the said count itself. The Ld. AR in support of her aforesaid contentions had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under: (i) .CIT Vs. Bhaichand Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (ii). Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai) (iii). Satish Kumar Vs. ITO (2019) 198 TTJ 114 (Asr) (iv). Harjindar Singh Bal Vs. Deluty Commissioner of Income Tax, ITA No.57/RPR/2020 dated 26.12.2022 It was, thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the addition of Rs.13.79 lacs (supra) made by the A.O u/s.68 of the Act did not fall within…

Chkor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 5625/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…were already available on record how the Assessing Officer can make the addition u/s.68 of the Act. In this regard he relied on the finding in the following case law: - i. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) ii. Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai)] 21. Further, he submitted that remuneration from Salome Holdings INC was disclosed by the assessee till date. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 41 of the Paper Book wherein assessee has submitted the statement of accounts for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009 from M/s.Lennox Overseas Inc., which was submitted before th…

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC8 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 5624/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…were already available on record how the Assessing Officer can make the addition u/s.68 of the Act. In this regard he relied on the finding in the following case law: - i. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) ii. Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai)] 21. Further, he submitted that remuneration from Salome Holdings INC was disclosed by the assessee till date. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 41 of the Paper Book wherein assessee has submitted the statement of accounts for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009 from M/s.Lennox Overseas Inc., which was submitted before th…

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1995/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…were already available on record how the Assessing Officer can make the addition u/s.68 of the Act. In this regard he relied on the finding in the following case law: - i. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) ii. Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai)] 21. Further, he submitted that remuneration from Salome Holdings INC was disclosed by the assessee till date. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 41 of the Paper Book wherein assessee has submitted the statement of accounts for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009 from M/s.Lennox Overseas Inc., which was submitted before th…

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 1994/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…were already available on record how the Assessing Officer can make the addition u/s.68 of the Act. In this regard he relied on the finding in the following case law: - i. CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bombay) ii. Mehul V. Vyas v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai)] 21. Further, he submitted that remuneration from Salome Holdings INC was disclosed by the assessee till date. In this regard he brought to our notice Page No. 41 of the Paper Book wherein assessee has submitted the statement of accounts for the period 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2009 from M/s.Lennox Overseas Inc., which was submitted before th…

Hemendra Banjare, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 112/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.112/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hemendra Banjare 53/B Hscl Colony, Ruabandha Sector, Civic Centre, Bhilai (C.G.)-490006. Pan : Ajgpb7555A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(4), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69A

…The Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul M. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mum.). Alternatively, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that both the lower authorities had failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective and had wrongly made/sustained the addition of Rs.55.58 lacs in the hands of the assessee. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities.…

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

…ere in other judgments i.e. CIT Vs. Bhaichand N Gnadhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.), Smt. Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.), Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 Taxmann.com 206 (Gauhati)(TM), Mehul v. Vyas Vs. ITO(2014) 164 ITD 296(Mum) and ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Jumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxmann.com 610(Lucknow) etc are discussed, considered and observed that: 9. After having gone through the facts and circumstances, we observe that credit in the ‘bank account’ of an assessee cannot be construed as a credit in the ‘books’ of the assessee, for the very reason that the bank a…

Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 13/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Cuke Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 2, Scheme No. 2, Arya Ward 7(3) Vihar Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abipg 2253 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2019 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer) In Making An Addition Of Rs. 4,03,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Act As Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposited In Bank Accounts. 2. The Appellant Contends That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Ought Not To Have Upheld The Action Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…ar view had also been arrived at in a 'third member' decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 taxmann.com 206 (Gauhati) (TM), as well as by the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mum) and ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxamann.com 610 (Lucknow). 10. W e f i n d t h a t a s s t a n d s g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d s , t h e addition aggregating to Rs. 4.03 lacs sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is in respect of the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee, and not in any 'books' of the…

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

…on, he has relied on the following decisions. 1. Smt. Ramilaben B Patel vs ITO (2019) 174 ITD 694 (Ahd. Tribunal) 2. Satish Kumar vs ITO (2019) 175 DTR 121 (Asr. Tribunal) 10 Smt. Renu Sehgal vs DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur 3. Mehl V Vyas vs ITO (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai Tribunal) The ld.AR thus supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.8 We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The AO has referred to seized material being agreement to sell dated 10-10-2011 whereby the assessee alongwith her husband Shri D.P. Sehgal agreed to sell their properties situated at Ne…

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs ACIT, S/o Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAHPY8780E Assessee by : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 ORDER Per N. S. Saini, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-XIX…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…0 &5432/Del/2011( 08/06/2018) 2.Zaheer Abdulhamid SMC Pune Bench Para 13 Mulani (Before Ms Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A bench Para 7 & Para 8 ITA (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 7097/Mum/2013 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD (23.03.2018) 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench Para 4 to 7 in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC bench Para 5 in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E bench in Para 5 to 8 ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT Para 7 143 ITD 686 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…0 &5432/Del/2011( 08/06/2018) 2.Zaheer Abdulhamid SMC Pune Bench Para 13 Mulani (Before Ms Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A bench Para 7 & Para 8 ITA (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 7097/Mum/2013 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD (23.03.2018) 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench Para 4 to 7 in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC bench Para 5 in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E bench in Para 5 to 8 ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT Para 7 143 ITD 686 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…30 &5432/Del/2011( 08/06/2018) 2.Zaheer Abdulhamid SMC Pune Bench Para 13 Mulani (Before Ms Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A bench Para 7 & Para 8 ITA (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 7097/Mum/2013 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD (23.03.2018) 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench Para 4 to 7 in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC bench Para 5 in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E bench in Para 5 to 8 ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT Para 7 143 ITD 686 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…30 &5432/Del/2011( 08/06/2018) 2.Zaheer Abdulhamid SMC Pune Bench Para 13 Mulani (Before Ms Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A bench Para 7 & Para 8 ITA (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 7097/Mum/2013 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD (23.03.2018) 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench Para 4 to 7 in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC bench Para 5 in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E bench in Para 5 to 8 ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT Para 7 143 ITD 686 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT…

CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi

Nilesh Jain, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Indore

Perumal Sekar, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(2). Salem, Salem

Kanchan Lalwani, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

Dinesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(4), Mumbai

Mahesh Subhash Shukla, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Rahul Sharma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-2(2), Raipur

Chkor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-8(3), Mumbai

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC8 (3), Mumbai

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

Chakor L Doshi, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT8(3), Mumbai

Hemendra Banjare, Bhilai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

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

Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Jaipur

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi