DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v. CIT (

37 ITR 285Reported decision#24699 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69ASection 132Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

section 66rejection of books of accountsection 145(3)liable to taxsection 145section 115bbsection 115bdouble taxationincome-tax officerunexplained moneysection 23genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v. CIT (

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…n Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT cannot take place of reality refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (261 ITR 775(SC), Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary Mohanmedsait Vs CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT Vs Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 3(iii) Further, the assessment order also undoubtedly speaks that no show cause notice for invoking the provision of section 115 BBE has been issued by the learned AO. As it is a settled legal mandatory requirement that the learned AO has to issue a specific show cause notice to this effect a…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 16. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but making addition on the basis of Cash deposited to that extent and duly recorded in the Books of Accou…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 17. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but making addition on the basis of Cash deposited to that extent and duly recorded in the Books of Accou…

DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v. CIT ( (37 ITR 285) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax