Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala v. ITO

152 ITD 874Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2014#11935 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also reported as

49 Taxmann.com 583

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirysection 44amalabar industrialsection 194asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala v. ITO

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…26/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii) ITA NO. 5313/Mum/2013 Vishal P. Mehta v. DCIT 9.22 Further, in “Vaghasiya Exports”, order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2288/Mum/2019, it was found that the only addition…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…26/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii) ITA NO. 5313/Mum/2013 Vishal P. Mehta v. DCIT 9.22 Further, in “Vaghasiya Exports”, order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2288/Mum/2019, it was found that the only addition…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…26/Mum/2013 dated 5.11.2014 Shri Ganpatraj A Sanghavi vs. ACIT iii) 221 Taxman 436 (Guj) CIT vs. Pradeep Shantilal Patel (section 44AF) iv) ITA No. 116/Ahd/2011 dated 30.5.2014 Narpat Singh vs. 1TO v) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. vi) 152 ITD 874 (Ahd) Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala vs. ITO vii) ITA No. 2446 & 2447/Mum/2015 DCIT v. Allied Blende.s and Distillers (P) Ltd. viii) ITA NO. 5313/Mum/2013 Vishal P. Mehta v. DCIT 9.22 Further, in “Vaghasiya Exports”, order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2288/Mum/2019, it was found that the only addition…

Shri Rama Mepa Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Porbandar

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 67/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Us, The Counsel For The Assessee Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay & Argued That The Reason For Delay In Filing Appeal Before Itat Was That The Assessee Was Suffering From Spinal Injury & Was Advised Complete Bed Rest By The Doctors. In Support Of The Above Contention, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate With Respect To The Injury Suffered

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 67 /Rjt/2019 Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Rama Mepa Odedara, The Income Tax Officer, Porbandar Ward-2(4), PAN: AAUP03945L Vs Porbandar (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sagar Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 28-06-2023 Date of pronouncement : 30-06-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…re is no denying the fact that the appellant is in export business and the total business receipts have been deposited in bank accounts which have not been disputed at any stage. Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala Vs. ITO 152 ITD 874 (Ahd.) has held ''Where aggregate ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 credits in undisclosed bank account of assessee were considered as cash sales, entire sales could not be considered as income but only profit embedded in it be considered as income of assessee. Even when the pur…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 1115/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…re is no denying the fact that the appellant is in export business and the total business receipts have been deposited in bank accounts which have not been disputed at any stage. Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala Vs. ITO 152 ITD 874 (Ahd.) has held ''Where aggregate ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 credits in undisclosed bank account of assessee were considered as cash sales, entire sales could not be considered as income but only profit embedded in it be considered as income of assessee. Even when the pur…

The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. Shri Anirudh P. Shethi, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 345/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Pradad

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRADAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 345/AHD/2015 & CO No. 01/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The DCIT, बनाम/ Shri Anirudh P. Sethi Circle- 1(2), B-228, Anand Baug Society, Vs. 2nd Floor, Aaykar Makarpura, Baroda Bhavan, Race Course Circle, Baroda "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ANB PS5 743 A (Respondent/Cross Objector) (Appellant/Respondent) .. Shri Sumit Kr. Verma, Sr. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : DR. None ""…

Harmeet Singh Sablok, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 476/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 476/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Mr. Harmeet Singh Sablok The Ito Ward-22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Chs Ltd. Juhu, Santacruz Mumbai-400012. (W), Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alrps3621D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. S. Phadkar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri M. K. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Confirm.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Phadkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri M. K. Singh (DR)
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 476/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Mr. Harmeet Singh Sablok The ITO Ward-22(1)(5) A/24, Queens Park Premises Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. CHS Ltd. Juhu, Santacruz Mumbai-400012. (W), Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ALRPS3621D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S. S. Phadkar (AR) Revenue by: Shri M. K. Singh (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 28.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Om Prakash, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed

ITA 5300/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2006-07 The I.T.O. Vs. Sh. Om Prakash Ward 40 (5) 139, Sandesh Vihar Room No.1707 Pitampura E -2 Block, Civic Centre Delhi 110 034 Minto Road New Delhi – 110 002 Pan: Aagpp6711P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 08.02.2018 Date Of 23.02.18 Pronouncement

Section 251Section 251(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2006-07 The I.T.O. vs. Sh. Om Prakash Ward 40 (5) 139, Sandesh Vihar Room No.1707 Pitampura E -2 Block, Civic Centre Delhi 110 034 Minto Road New Delhi – 110 002 PAN: AAGPP6711P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. Respondent by None Date of Hearing 08.02.2018 Date of 23.02.18 Pronouncement ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against order dated 02/07/2015, passed by Ld. CIT…

Dineshbhai Dhansukhlal Mithaiwala v. ITO (152 ITD 874) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax