How many judgments cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (103 ITR 344), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 131, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

103 ITR 344High Court1976#1170 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

When explaining cash credits from third parties, the assessee must prove the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee is not required to explain the source of funds for the third party.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sarogi Credit Corp v CIT · 103 ITR 344 · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · source of source · third party deposits · Patna High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 131 Section 115BBE Section 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor eligible assessee statement under section 132(4)share capital and share premium retracted statement addition under section 68 preponderance of probability share application money eligible business addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…the appellant, it is for the department to prove that the cash credit actually represents suppressed income of the appellant. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the decision of the H'ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corp. v. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) wherein the h'ble High Court has held that "...Unlike credit entries appearing in the accounts of the assessee in his own name or in the name of her husband, children, relation or employees, the onus on the assessee in respect of the credit in the names of the third parties stands discharged if he establishes the identity of those parties…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4872, 4878, 4866 & 4865/Mum/2023 (A.Ys: 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle – 5(2) Vs. AGV Consultants, Room No. 1908, Air India A-101, Ashoka Tower, Bldg, Nariman Point, Kullupwali Road, Mumbai – 400021 Borivali (E), Mumbai – 400066. PAN/GIR No. AAZFA0780A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by DR K.R. Subhash, CIT-Ld.DR & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pro…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. M/S JEEWANI FUELS PVT. LTD, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed as discussed

ITA 303/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaasstt Commissioner Of M/S. Jeewani Fuels Pvt. V. Income Tax, Circle Ltd Dcit, Circle, Faizabad, Annexe 105, Mughalpura, Hotel Krishna Palace, Civil Faizabad-224001. Lines, Faizabad-224001. Pan:Aabcj2557K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ash creditors, copies of income tax returns filed by the lender, audited financial statements and statements of bank accounts of the lender the initial burden placed upon the assessee can be said to have been discharged. In “Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna), it has been held that it is not for the assessee to explain further as to how the or in what circumstances the depositor obtained the money, or how he came to make an advance of the money as a loan to the assessee; that once such identity is established and the creditors, have pledged their oath that they have advanced the amounts in que…

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143Section 147

…nus of establishing the source from which such third party had been able to obtain the money. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: - a. 24 Tax World146 Sideways Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (JP ITAT) b. 87 ITR 349 CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmal (SC) c. 103 ITR 344 Saraogi Credit Corp. Vs. CIT (PAT) 19 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT It is further relevant to state that on perusal of the assessment order it is evident fact that the Ld. AO has summarily rejected the evidence submitted by the assessee and made no effort to bring on record some material to support his conclusion that during the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…e Court on 23.04.2018 reported in 93 taxmann.com 84 (vi) Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (vii) Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO, 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (viii) CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna) (x) DCIT v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xi) Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (xii) ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd., 70 SOT 368 (xiii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (xiv) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd., 237 Taxman 104 29. He submitted that when the assessee has proved the source of t…

REWIN CERAMICS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 21(3), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4580/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…13) Rewin Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO from whom the amount if received and even AO is precluded from raising such a query. 1. Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT (SC) reported in 30 ITR 181. 2. Sarogi Credit Corpn. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Patna HC) reported in 103 ITR 344. 3. CIT vs Diamond Prducts Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 177 Taxman.331. 4. CIT vs Dwarkadhish Investment P. Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 330 ITR 298. 5. CIT vs Matachem Industries (MP HC) reported in 245 ITR 160 6. CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel (P&H HC) reported in 224 ITR 180 7. DCIT vs Rohini Builders (Guj HC) reported in 256 ITR 360 PROPOSITION 7: Onc…

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

ITA 81/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jul 2024AY 2011-2012

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Moriyani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 269TSection 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 81/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, ……………. Appellant Ward -1, Amravati v/s Shri Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale 1, Shivaji Nagar, Banosa, ……………. Respondent Daryapur, Dist. Amravati. PAN – AHRPB8625J Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moriyani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y.Marathe, Sr.Dr. Date of Hearing – 09/07/2024 Date of Order – 16/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the department challenging the impugned…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…vs. Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 (Statute) • CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Ashwini Kumar Taneja 6 • GG Films vs. ITO 45 TTJ 644 (Cochin) and Anil Kumar Midha (HUF) vs. ITO 100 TTJ 644 (jodhpur) • Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT, Biahr 103 ITR 344 (Pat) • Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gauhati) • Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) • S. Hastimal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 49 ITR 0273. Ld. DR however supported the findings of Ld. ΑΟ. 5. 6. On appreciating the material on record and the submissions, and the grounds raised, primarily it comes forth that the assessee was given…

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…ecorded in books of account. 1. Dy CIT Vs Himland Agro Food Ltd ITA No.743,745,747/CHD/2013 order dt 17/01/2017. 2. ITO Vs Sukamal Sikdar in ITA No.l46/Kol/2012. 3. ITO Vs Karim K Lakhan in ITA No.220/AHD/2010 order dt 13/12/2013. 4. Sarogi Credit Corp Vs CIT 103 ITR 344. 5. Smt Sarika Jain Vs CIT(2017) 84 Taxman.com 64 (All). In view of facts & decided cases Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961 read with section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. Secondly:- on facts that assessee firm surrendered the amount of Rs.50,00,000.00 as additional income of firm which is purely based on ca…

TARLOCHAN SINGH ,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

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

ITA 754/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14jSection 68Section 69

…orded in books of accounts. 1. Dy CIT Vs Himland Agro Food Ltd ITA No.743,745,747/CHD/2013 order dt 17/01/2017. 2. ITO Vs Sukamal Sikdar in ITA No. 146/Kol/2012. 3. ITO Vs Karim K Lakhan in ITA No.220/AHD/2010 order dt 13/12/2013. 4. Sarogi Credit Corp Vs CIT 103 ITR 344. 5. Smt Sarika Jain Vs CIT(2017) 84 Taxman.com 64 (All). In view of facts & decided cases Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked section 69 of Income Tax Act 1961 read with section 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961. Ground of Appeal No. 3 Excess stock of Rs.17,07,029.00 assessed u/s 69 of Income Tax Act 1961. Para No.3 of assessment order at Page 5 re…

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…ource of source or the origin of origin vide S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad), Tolaram Daga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632 (Assam), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull[1972] CTR 411: [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT 1975 CTR (Pat)1: (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat)." ii) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360/12003] 127 Taxman 523, has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the…

ITO, WARD-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BANSAL SEPARATORS AND SPARES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3173/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleito – Ward – 14(1)(1) V. M/S. Bansal Separators & Spares Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 431, 4Th Floor 6, Laxminarayan Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aabcb8468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO – Ward – 14(1)(1) v. M/s. Bansal Separators and Spares Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 431, 4th Floor 6, Laxminarayan Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sion Trombay Road, Chembur Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400071 PAN: AABCB8468M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Sameer Dalal Department Represented by : Shri Chetan M. Kacha Date of conclusion of Hearing : 09.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN…

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 282/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The DCIT Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi CIRCLE Prop: M/s.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. ADXPR 0949 R Assessee By Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate and Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR Revenue By Date of hearing 17/01/2023 Date of 13/04/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by Ld CIT(A), Ajmer dated 26-03-…

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.228 to 230/Ind/2021 (Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) ACIT, Central-2, Vs. Sarthak Innovation (P) Indore Ltd. Indore "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAKCS4846B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R. Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, CA Assessee by : 28.02.2023 Date of Hearing 30.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The bunch of appeals filed by the Revenue…

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) 59 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Oth…

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5