CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT

113 TTJ 178High Court2008#8313 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 147Section 148Section 2(12A)Section 250Section 251Section 44AASection 44AF

Judgments citing CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile v. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT

DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(5), DELHI

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

ITA 1328/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1328/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Sh. Deepak Srivastava, Income Tax Officer 1404, Tower-16, Orchid Petals, Vs. Ward-30(5), Sector-49, Gurgaon, Civic Centre, Haryana. Delhi. Pan No. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2Section 250Section 251Section 44ASection 68

…therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. The CIT(A), in this regard, has rightly placed reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom.). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable." 17. In the case of Baladin Ram Vs. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 427, th…

SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 444/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar03 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Touseef Ahmad Khanday &For Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Farukh Jehan Zeb Vs. Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat Anantnag R/o Awantipora, Near Gurdwara, Distt. Pulwama [PAN: AALPZ 6554D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Touseef Ahmad Khanday & Sh. Shabir Ahmad Dar, CAs Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 03.08.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by…

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e is no material available with learned Pr. CIT that unsecured loans were unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. It was also submitted that the bank account does not constitute “books of account” of the assessee, as has been held in following cases: i) 113 TTJ 178 (Del) Mayawati vs. DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom…

A.SRINIVASA RAO,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/VIZ/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.518/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Sri A.Srinivasa Rao Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.48-13-20/1, F.No.Sf2 Ward-1(4) Sri Krishna Sai Residency Visakhapatnam Janaki Rama Street Visakhapatnam [Pan :Adhpa2185Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…are, therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. The CIT(A), in this regard, has rightly placed reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 ITR 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO, 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, In the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable." 17. In the case of Baladin Ram VS. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 427, th…

BABBAL BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5432/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. The CIT(A), in this regard, has rightly placed reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom.). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable.” 17. In the case of Baladin Ram Vs. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 427, t…

BABBAL BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5431/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. The CIT(A), in this regard, has rightly placed reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom.). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable.” 17. In the case of Baladin Ram Vs. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 427, t…

BABBAL BHATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5430/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

…therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. The CIT(A), in this regard, has rightly placed reliance on 'CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi', 141 I.T.R. 67(Bom.), 'Sampat Automobile vs. ITO', 96 TTJ(D)368, 'Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT', 113 TTJ 178(Del.) and 'Sheraton Apparels vs. ACIT', 256 I.T.R. 20(Bom.). It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68 of the Act, no such addition is tenable.” 17. In the case of Baladin Ram Vs. CIT [1969] 7 ITR 427, t…

RADHEY RAM GODARA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…has been held that Bank Pass Book & loose papers cannot be treated as account book. CIT V/s Bhai Chand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67(Bom) where bank pass book not held books of accounts. 21 Shri Radhey Ram Godara vs ITO, Ward- 3(5), Jaipur In Ms. Mayawati v/s DCIT 113 TTJ 178(Del) it has been held that where the assessee does not maintain any books of account S. 68 cannot be invoked, balance sheet or statement of affairs cannot be equated to books of account bank pass book is not a books of account maintained by the assessee within the meaning of S. 68. Here also the AO made addition on the basis of deposit in bank ac…