Dy. CIT v. SmtArchana Devi (2004) 84 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 467 23. ITO v. Laxman Das Makhija

116 ITD 47Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#18847 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. SmtArchana Devi (2004) 84 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 467 23. ITO v. Laxman Das Makhija

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)

…Rajasthan Asbestos Cement Co. (2009) 23 DTR (Jp- Trib) 430 Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 22. Dy. CIT v. SmtArchana Devi (2004) 84 TTJ (Jod-Trib) 467 23. ITO v. Laxman Das Makhija (2009) 26 (II) ITCL 517 (Agra-Trib) : (2009) 313 ITR 123 (Agra-Trib): (2009) 116 ITD 47 (Agra-Trib) 24. S. Hastimal v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad) 25. JaikishanDadlani v. ITO (2005) 4 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 (…

THE ASSISATANT COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME-TAX,, HOSHIARPUR vs. SH. MANINDER SINGH CHEEMA, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 719/ASR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 719/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev K. Gubgotra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, (C.A.)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

…not applicable to a trade credit - and which is what the earnest money essentially is, relying on the following decisions: CIT v. Bhital Das Modi [2005] 276 ITR 517 (All) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 156 Taxman 507 (All) ITO v. Lachhman Das Makhija [2009] 116 ITD 47 (Agra) (TM). 4.2 Even as observed by the Bench during hearing, whether in the given facts and circumstances, i.e., the explanation offered, and the materials led in support, could the ‘depositors’ be said to have deposited the earnest money, which only would qualify them to be regarded as trade creditors, is the question arising. This would also…

SUPRITA SACHIN VAISHAMPAYAN,THANE vs. ITO 3(3), THANE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 7173/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Captain Pradeep Arya

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…elivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs CIT 26 ITR 775(SC) and decisions rendered by the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs Kumar Metal Industries (1991) 36 ITD 261 (Mum) and the Agra Bench in ITO Vs Laxman Dass Makhija[2009]116 ITD 47(AGRA) to substantiate his contentions. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the assessee has discharged the onus of explaining the nature and source of the amount in question, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4 Assessment Year: 2008-09 5. On the other hand the Ld. DR relying on the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted t…

ITO, WARD - 3(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CHITRAVALI SALES (P) LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 68

…ked in respect of trade deposits received from customers. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions in support of this proposition :- (a) Decision of Third Member of Agra Tribunal in the case of ITO vs Laxman das Makhija reported in (2009) 116 ITD 47 (TM ) (b) Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bhital Das Modi reported in (2005) 276 ITR 517 (All) (c ) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Tulip Finance Ltd reported in (2009) 178 Taxman 182 (Del) (d ) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Chemi Kleen India (P) Ltd reported…