CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT v. Rohini Builders

258 ITR 278High Court2002#13917 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

summons under section 131 addition u/s 68 section 131 unexplained cash credit section 68 section 13 company business document interest

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT v. Rohini Builders

MALLYA REAL ESTATES P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-16(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 6158/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 68

…osition, he relied on the following decisions:\n(i) CIT Vs. Bharat Engineering and Construction Com 83 ITR 187 [SC]\n(ii) CIT Vs. Jaiswal Motor Finance 141 ITR 706 [Ahd]\n(iii) DCIT Vs. Esteem Towers Pvt Ltd 99 TTJ 472 [Del]\n(iv) Mitesh Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 258 ITR 278.\n\n8. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the balance sheet shows liability of Rs 1,40,10,000/- against the name of M/s Sushil Enterprises and Rs.38,19,700/- against the name of M/s Bishan Sons totaling to Rs 1,78,39,700/- under the heading 'other long-term liabilities.' The ld DR further pointed out that these names were later attempte…

NEPRA ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTINS PRIVATE LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1683/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…e\nAO has a choice of selecting the method under Rule 11UA. The AR also\nargued that the AO cannot replace the method of valuation arbitrarily.\n7. 1. The AR placed reliance on the following judicial precedents:\n- Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 278 (Guj.).\n- CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. [1972] 83 ITR 187 (SC).\n- CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. (Delhi HC) [ITA No: 71/2015,\n72/2015 & 84/2015].\n- Arjun Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 290/Agra/2016].\n- DCIT vs. JWL Cold Store Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai ITAT) ITA No:\n3098/MUM/2023.\n- ITO vs. Surana Metcast (India) Pvt. Ltd…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.140/SRT/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The DCIT, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Date of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to…

M/S. LEOPARD VITRIFIED PVT. LTD.,VILLAGE MATEL, DIST. MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

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

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022

Section 143(3)Section 263

…is contention, assessee relied on following pronouncements: • Supreme Court in case of Bharat engineering & Construction Co. -83 ITR 187, • Supreme Court in case of P. K. Noorjahan- 237 ITR 570, • Gujarat High Court in case of Mitesh Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd. - 258 ITR 278, • Gujarat High Court in case of Green Finance Ltd. -judgment dated 10.11.2014 in Tax Appeal No. 67-68 of 2001, • Delhi High Court in case of Five Vision Promoters Pvt Ltd. - 380 ITR 289, • Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Praful (Agarwal) Art Prints Pvt Ltd. ITA No. 3568/Ahm/2007, • Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Siyed Paper Mills Ltd. - ITA No. 1544-1545/A…

SHRI KRUSHNAKANT BHAILALBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. ITO, WARD-2, , NADIAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2329/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2329/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 At Mahudha Nagarwada Vs Nadiad. Nr.Gujarati School At & Post Mahudha Dist. Kheda. Pan : Awkpp 7005 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjahan Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC), which affirmed the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 and Mitesh Rolling Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 278, it is submitted that additions ought not to have been made. In the submissions, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made reference to the following decisions: CIT Vs. Megha Industries, (103) 7 TaxCorp (DT) 54015 i) (Gujarat); ii) CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar, 294 ITR 78; iii) ITO Vs. Mrs. Deepali Sehgal, ITA No.5660/Del/2012. On the other hand, the ld.DR…

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 290/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 68

…ndhi Cold Storage (P) Ltd. Vs. Department of Income Tax, ITA iv. No.368/Agra/2010 (Agra Tribunal). ‘India Rice Mills’, 218 ITR 508 Allahabad High Court. v. ‘Shastri Construction Co. vs. Department of Income Tax’. vi. ‘Mitesh Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Vs. CIT’, 258 ITR 278 (Guj). vii. viii. ‘ITO vs. M/s Divya Fuels’, ITA No. 134/Hyd/2011. ‘Surendra Prasad Mishra’, 7 SOT 457 Lucknow Bench. ix. ‘Sai Baba Rupadas’, ITA 1543/98 (Delhi Trib.). x. ‘Ghabiabad Footwear’, 142 Taxman 8 (Delhi-Trib.). xi. ‘Smt. Meera Devi’, 14 SOT 190 (All.Trib.). xii. 13. In view of the above settled position of law, the assessee is rig…

MF GLOBAL SIFY SECURITIES INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4407/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4407/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Mf Global Sify Securities India Addl. Commissioner Of Private Ltd. (Formerly Known As Mf Income Tax- Range 4(2) बिधम/ Global Sify Securities India Private Limited); Room No. 669, Aayakar 2Nd Floor, Modern Centre, Block Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, C, Mahalaxmi-Mumbai. Mumbai- 400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6382C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Revenue) :

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ot offer any explanation for the cash credit entries, the amount solely for the said reason cannot be assessed as his income under Sec. 68, relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mitesh Rolling Mills (P) ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 258 ITR 278 (Guj). 6. Per Contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short „D.R‟) averred that as the assessee had failed to identify the depositor, therefore, the genuineness of the transaction could not be established. The ld. D.R referring to S.No. 17 – Page 5 of the „Synopsis‟, averred that the amount of Rs. 58,162/- mentioned therein stood reflec…