CIT v. Mitesh Impex

398 ITR 514High Court2017#835 most cited

What is CIT v. Mitesh Impex authority for?

The principle of taxing 'real income' means an assessee is not bound by a voluntary disallowance made under section 14A in the return of income if it was declared under a wrong belief, particularly when the Tribunal has adjudicated the matter in the assessee's favor. An assessee can resile from such a position to ensure only actual taxable income is assessed.

125

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mitesh Impex · Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. · 398 ITR 514 · Section 14A disallowance · voluntary disallowance in return · resiling from voluntary declaration · taxation of real income · assessee not bound by wrong belief · Gujarat High Court 2017 · expenses relating to exempt income

Also reported as

270 CTR 6646 Taxmann.com 30225 Taxmann 168

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153ASection 147Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158basection 150unexplained jewellerysection 70beyond four yearssection 18section 149(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Mitesh Impex

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 4539/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4539/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 1, C – 8, Commercial Complex, LTU, New Delhi. Safdarjang Development Area, New Delhi – 110 016. (PAN : AAACS0206P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA Shri Ravi Kumar, CAR Shri Shubham, CA REVENUE BY : Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. These appeals are fi…

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘H’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4539/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) SRF Limited, vs. ACIT, Circle 1, C – 8, Commercial Complex, LTU, New Delhi. Safdarjang Development Area, New Delhi – 110 016. (PAN : AAACS0206P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA Shri Ravi Kumar, CAR Shri Shubham, CA REVENUE BY : Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date of Order : 12.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. These appeals are fi…

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…n, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the\nvoluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed\nwith the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High\nCourt in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision\nof ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.\nCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. We find merit in the contention of the assessee\nthat once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee's favour then merely\nbecause disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong\nbelief, the assessee ca…

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…tion, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee's favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief, the assessee cannot…

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned\nissue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in\nthis regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…n, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the\nvoluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed\nwith the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High\nCourt in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision\nof ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy.\nCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. We find merit in the contention of the assessee\nthat once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee's favour then merely\nbecause disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong\nbelief, the assessee ca…

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…tion, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee's favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief, the assessee cannot…

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

…tion, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 249. We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee's favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief, the assessee cannot…

BRIGHT PAINTS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground no

ITA 6817/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 14ASection 250Section 73

…India Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7(2), Mumbai [2018] 89 taxmann.com 21(Mumbai-Trib.) and the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. UTI Bank Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 392 (Gujarat)/[2017] 398 ITR 514 (Gujarat)[13-06-2016], for restricting the disallowance 11 Bright Paints Pvt. Ltd. only to the extent of the exempt income, where the assessee’s suo moto disallowance was much higher than that, we are not in agreement with the same for the reason that the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR was distinguishable on the facts of the present case. 1…

ACIT- 4 2 1, MUMBAI CITY vs. HATHWAY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas the cross objections filed by the Assessee’s are allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 1482/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar & Co No. 90/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2014-15} A N D & Co No. 91/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2017-18}

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh Vora (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 250

…disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee suo motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. UTI Bank Limited (2017) 398 ITR 514(Guj) and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management Private Limited v. DCIT (2017) 57 ITR(Trib.) 205(Mumbai). We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee‟s favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief , the…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI CITY vs. HATHWAY INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas the cross objections filed by the Assessee’s are allowed, for statistical purposes

ITA 1481/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankar & Co No. 90/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2014-15} A N D & Co No. 91/Mum/2025 {Assessment Year: 2017-18}

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh Vora (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 10(34)Section 115Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 250

…disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee suo motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. UTI Bank Limited (2017) 398 ITR 514(Guj) and decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Rupee Finance and Management Private Limited v. DCIT (2017) 57 ITR(Trib.) 205(Mumbai). We find merit in the contention of the assessee that once tribunal has adjudicated matter in assessee‟s favour then merely because disallowance was made in return of income voluntarily under a wrong belief , the…

TODI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 896/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 896/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2015-16) Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd. V/S. Ito-8(3)(2), Mumbai 1St Floor, Todi Estate, Sun बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mill Compound, Lower Road, Maharashtra- Parel (W), Maharashtra- 400020 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact4620Q Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 115JSection 234Section 234BSection 250Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 72Section 80G

…bunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 12. In the circumstances, the entire contention based on application of decision in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is misconceived in law," (emphasis supplied) ➤Decision of PCIT v. UTI Bank Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 514 (Gujarat HC) [Copy of judgement is enclosed as Annexure-4 at page no. 21 to 23], where the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that: "6. Regarding a claim contrary to the disclosures in the return, the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2015-16 Todi Industries Pvt. Ltd.…

LATE MAHESH RAMANLAL MODI L/H MANISH MAHESH MODI,BHARUCH vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road at Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) PAN No. ADFPM 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Hiren R. Vepari, C.A. Department represented by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.DR Date of hearing 30/12/2024 Date of pronouncement 04/03/2025 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SI…

VIPUL LALLUBHAI KUKADIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), SURAT

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

ITA 1051/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1051/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Awppk 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत "ायपीठ, सूरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1051/SRT/2024 (AY 2016-17) (Physical court hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [PAN : AWPPK 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-DR सुनवाई की तार…

DHARMESH KANUBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 173/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 173/Srt/2024 (Ay 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) Dharmesh Kanubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- 59, Patel Street, At Post Kosad, 2(3)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम Tal-Choryasi, Dist. Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Vs Surat-394 107 [Pan : Ascpp 6161 F] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 54B

…raise additional claim before First Appellate Authority in view of various decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court including in case of CIT vs. Mitesh Impex (2014) 46 taxmann.com 30 (Guj)/[2014] 225 Taxman 168 (Guj) (Mag.)[2014] 367 ITR 85 (Guj)/[2014] 270 CTR 66(Guj) [02-04- 2014]. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that since he has raised additional claim for the first time before Tribunal. Furthermore, neither the Assessing Officer has considered the report of DVO nor the report of Government Registered Valuer. Therefore, in all fairness, matter may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer aft…

HARPREET KAUR KAUSHIK MANEK,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

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

ITA 109/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…(SC) and National Thermal Power Corporation vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Ld. AR also relied upon the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court’s decision in the case of S.R. koshti vs CIT (2005) 276 ITR 165, CIT vs Mitesh Impex (2014) 367 ITR 85 and PCIT vs UTI Bank (2017) 398 ITR 514. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not disputed as to what exactly the money in respect of margin as the same was not explained by the assessee and the Assessing Officer, despite asking for the documentary evidence, was not given the ledger to explain the concept of the transactions and the incurrence of loss. The Ld. DR subm…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 741/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…orward to future years accordingly. Thus, addition on this count is directed to be deleted. Ground No.18 is partly allowed.” 15.1. Ld Senior Counsel made reliance on the judgements of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Mitesh Impex reported in 270 CTR 66 [Guj] and Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Pruthvi Brokers reported in 349 ITR 336 [Bmy] and the LTCL is to be allowed. Per contra Ld CIT DR supported the order passed by the CIT[A]. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The judgements relied by the assessee are not applicable to the pres…

SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 712/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

…orward to future years accordingly. Thus, addition on this count is directed to be deleted. Ground No.18 is partly allowed.” 15.1. Ld Senior Counsel made reliance on the judgements of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -Vs- Mitesh Impex reported in 270 CTR 66 [Guj] and Bombay High Court judgement in the case of Pruthvi Brokers reported in 349 ITR 336 [Bmy] and the LTCL is to be allowed. Per contra Ld CIT DR supported the order passed by the CIT[A]. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The judgements relied by the assessee are not applicable to the pres…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 50/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 49/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to…

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

ITA 48/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 132

…Bipinbhai Patel Legal Heir of Late Bipinbhai P. Patel & 81 ors. i. Jute Corporation of India vs. CIT-187 ITR 688 (SC) ✓ National Thermal Power Corporation vs CIT-229 ITR 383 (SC); ii. CIT v. Mitesh Impex-(2014) 367 ITR 85 (Guj): iii. PCIT vs. UTI Bank-(2017) 398 ITR 514 (Guj): iv. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.-306 ITR 42 (Delhi): v. CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders-349 ITR 336 (Bom): vi. CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation P. Ltd.-396 ITR 251 (Madras 80. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the genuineness and quantification of the losses was not in dispute and it was well settled that only real income has to…

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

CIT v. Mitesh Impex (398 ITR 514) — Cited in 125 Judgments | BharatTax