How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel (224 ITR 180), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 234B, Section 250, Section 131.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel

224 ITR 180High Court1997#2629 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel authority for?

Once an assessee discharges the initial burden of proving the identity of the depositor/lender and the genuineness of the transaction under Section 68, the Assessing Officer generally cannot delve into the 'source of source' of those funds.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Narain Goel · 224 ITR 180 · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained money · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · source of source · identity and creditworthiness · Section 131 · physical inspection report

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B Section 250 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 share application money section 145(3)documents seized rule 46a erroneous and prejudicial genuineness of the transaction income-tax officer undisclosed income section 133(6)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel

Nidhi Rani, Panipat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…ITA No.3323/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani vs ITO 1361, Sector-25, Part-II Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat PAN-ARRPR9400P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.…

Srs Educational Society, Faridabad vs. ITO(E), Faridabad

ITA 941/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj.); [ii] Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (Raj.HC) 219 CTR 571; [iii] Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj.); [iv] CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); [v] Tolaram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam); [vi] CIT vs Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.); and [vii] Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and submits that the assessee has failed to discharge the burden casted upon it of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions therefore,…

DCIT, Circle -6, Jaipur, Ncrb vs. Ascent Buildhome Developers Limited, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Inspector's report, corroborated by findings from the local Patwari, indicated that the land was uneven, rugged, and lacked development activity-contradicting the assessee's claims of extensive improvements. Supporting Case Law: CIT v. Ram Narain Goel (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H) supports the use of physical inspection reports as substantial evidence for assessing the genuineness of claimed development expenses. Further, in Smt. Saroj Agarwal v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 497 (SC), the Supreme Court upheld that physical verification by way of field inspection is a valid approach for evaluating claims of expenses in tax matt…

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी रिवश सूद, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 212/RPR/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Fafadih Chowk, Timber Market, s Raipur-1, Chhattisgarh Raipur-492001 (C.G.) PAN: AEOPP8115R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) . . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR सुनवाई की…

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

…4. 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: Once the initial onus is discharged by the assessee, than the Revenue has to peruse the matter by enforcing the attendance of the creditor/lender and in absence of the same, addition under section 68 is unsustainable. 1. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Orissa Corp, (P.) Ltd…

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

…itor from whom he has received money and depositor earns the advancement of money the source of source cannot be explore for which reliance was placed on judgment: • Tolaram Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 59 ITR 632 (Assam) • CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.) • Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) • Rohini Builders vs. DCIT 76 TTJ 521 (Ahmd.) • DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat) • CIT 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 Kum…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 452/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Ganesh Builders, The DCIT बनाम C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A Central Circle-1 H.No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAHFG2780N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 451/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

R.A. Metals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned orders dated 28

ITA 2946/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 R.A. Metals Private Limited Vs. Ito, S.No.3, G/F-2120 Sona Bazar, Delhi. Bhagirath Palace, Delhi 110 006. Pan Aafcr1911H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2017-18 R.A. Metals Private Limited Vs. ITO, S.No.3, G/F-2120 Sona Bazar, Delhi. Bhagirath Palace, Delhi 110 006. PAN AAFCR1911H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 16.04.2024 Date of 30.04.2024 pronouncement: O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM This appeal is against order dated 11.10.2023 of the Learned Commissioner of Inco…

Fashion Zone, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ward III(2), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 145(3)Section 68

…ssessing Officer is merely on doubts/suspicion and it is a settled law that doubt and suspicion, howsoever, strong it may be, cannot take the shape of evidence. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments:-  Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Narain 224 ITR 180 (P&H)  JCIT Vs. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. 265 ITR (Kol-Trib) 46 (AT)  DCIT Vs. D.N. Kamani (HUF) 70 ITD (Patna-Trib) 77  Elite Developers Vs.. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 73 ITD (Nagpur-Trib) 379  Monga Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ (All) 247  Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) 10.5 It was accordingly submitted that the addi…

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

…partment to verify. The creditors were having bank accounts. Hence, they were known not only to the bank but they were introduced by a third person to the bank. It could not be said that the creditors were fictitious persons.  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H) The Tribunal found that the moneys had been advanced by account payee cheques, and had been returned by the assessee with interest by account payee cheques, that copies of bank statements had been filed, that the creditors had filed confirmation letters, had appared before the Commissioner (Appeals) and admitted having advanced money to the…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…ssessing Officer is merely on doubts/suspicion and it is a settled law that doubt and suspicion, howsoever, strong it may be, cannot take the shape of evidence. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments:- i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ram Narain 224 ITR 180 (P&H) ii. JCIT Vs. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. 265 ITR (Kol-Trib) 46 (AT) iii. DCIT Vs. D.N. Kamani (HUF) 70 ITD (Patna-Trib) 77 iv. Elite Developers Vs.. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 73 ITD (Nagpur-Trib) 379 v. Monga Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ (All) 247 vi. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC)” 8. The ld. counsel further argued in…

M/S. Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3228/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandram/S. Godwin Construction Vs. Acit Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle A-151, Defence Colony, Meerut Mawana Road, Meerut Pan No. Aaefg 1843 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sandeep Sapra, C.A. Revenue By Shri R. K. Gupta, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

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

…unjustified and untenable. He further submitted that it is a settled law that the presumption howsoever strong cannot substitute evidence. He further submitted that that Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 has held that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence or proof. He therefore reiterated that since the addition has been made only on the basis of suspicion, the addition made by AO and upheld by CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 10. Ld DR on the other hand took us through the order of lower authorities and strongly supported the…

The ACIT Central-1, Bhopal vs. Shri Narendra Gupta, Gwalior

ITA 795/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Central-1 Shri Narendra Gupta, Bhopal Gwalior बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Afqpg 8055 A Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01.12.2022

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)

…tently wrong and unjustified approach on the part of the Id A.O. because he has made such huge addition simply on presumption and assumption without bringing any positive evidence on record. Ld AR has placed reliance on the decision of CIT Vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P & H) that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of evidence. Honble P & H High Court in the case of CIT v /s Faquir Chaman lal 262 ITR 295 (P & H) has held that it is well settled proposition that the presumption however strong cannot substitute evidence. Similar were the findings of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal vs. Shri Neeraj Mandloi, New Delhi

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…essee denying knowledge and filing affidavit to indicate transactions related to somebody else. It has been further held that document must be speaking document; no addition is permissible on basis of dumb document. 37. In the case of CIT vs. Ram NarairiGoel, 224 ITR 180, the Hon'ble P &H High Court has held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of evidence or proof. Similarly, the Hon'ble P &H High Court in the case of CIT vs. FaqirChamanLal, 262 ITR 295 has held that it is a well settled proposition that the presumption howsoever strong cannot substitute evidence. 38. In AmritlalNatwarlalVs. ACI…

Shri Rajiv Gupta, Sirsa vs. ITO-Ward-2, Sirsa

ITA 123/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jul 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: The Bench That The Lead

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…hat source of source cannot ITA 123&124 /CHD/2020 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 17 of 37 be enquired into in a case like the present case for which purposes, he would rely upon the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 224 ITR 180 (Punj. & Haryana). For similar proposition, reliance was placed upon Sumer Chand Jain Vs CIT 292 ITR 241 (M.P) where mere evidence of identifying the purchase was held to be sufficient. The Court held that it was not for the seller to identify the sources of his funds. It was argued that it was placing an impossible burden on a seller. It was a…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…SOT 138 (Mum-Trib) 26. Prop. Dhawala Service Station v. CIT (1993) 113 Taxation 11 (Jp- Trib). 27. ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 73 CTR (Trib) 80 (Pune- Trib)(TM) 28. Jagadish Oil Mills v. ITO (1995) 52 TTJ (Ind-Trib) 102 29. CIT v. Shri Ram NarainGoel (1997) 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 30. Asstt. CIT v. Mahavir Metals & Alloys (2002) 75 TTJ (Asr-Trib) 256. 31. KanhaialalJangid v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 217 CTR (Raj) 354 32. CIT v. Laul Transport Corporation (2009) 28 (I) ITCL 423 (P&H- HC) : (2009) 180 Taxman 185 (P&H) 33. CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. (2012) 44 (I) ITCL 511 (Del-HC) : (2011) 202 Taxman 548 (Del). 34. He…

Birendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad