HC) 10. DCIT Vs. Global Merchantiles (P.) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol. Trib.) 11. ACIT v. ETC Industries I.td

52 SOT 159Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#21143 most cited

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

Sections most often in play

Section 136 Section 139 Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234A Section 234B

Judgments citing HC) 10. DCIT Vs. Global Merchantiles (P.) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol. Trib.) 11. ACIT v. ETC Industries I.td

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…). 6. CIT v. Jagtar Singh Chawla [2013] 33 taxmann.com 38/215 Taxman 154 (Punj. & Har.). 7. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal (supra). 8. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra). 9. Fathima Bai v. ITO [2010] 32 DTR 243 (Kar.) 10. R.K.P. Elayarajan v. Dy. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 206/52 SOT 159 (Chennai) (URO). 11. ITO v. Smt. Sapana Dimri [2012] 19 taxmann.com 15/50 SOT 96 (Delhi) 14. Interestingly, none of the decisions referred above rely upon a binding precedent of the Supreme Court which has settled this issue. The aforesaid interpretation has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Xavier J. Pulikkal v. Dy. CIT [2…

DHARMISTA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 34(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

…. Jagriti Aggarwal [2011] 339 ITR 610/203 Taxman 203/15 taxmann.com 146 (Punj. & Har.) 8. CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 157 Taxman 398/286 ITR 274 (Gau.) 9. Fathima Bai v. ITO [2010] 32 DTR 243 (Kar.) 10. R.K.P. Elayarajan v. DCIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 206/52 SOT 159 (Chennai) (URO) 11. ITO v. Smt. Sapana Dimri [2012] 19 taxmann.com 15/50 SOT 96 (Delhi) 14. Interestingly, none of the decisions referred above rely upon a binding precedent of the Supreme Court which has settled this issue. The aforesaid interpretation has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Xavier J. Pulikkal v. Dy. CIT [20…

BLUE DIAMOND INFRASTRUCTURE & REALTY P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6176/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)

…Kar. HC) 8. CIT vs. Arunananda Textiles Pvt. I td (2011) 333 ITR II 6 (Kar. HC) 9. CIT vs. Shree Barkha Synthetics Ltd. (270 FIR 477) (Raj. HC) 10. DCIT Vs. Global Merchantiles (P.) Ltd. (2016) 157 ITD 924 (Kol. Trib.) 11. ACIT Vs. ETC Industries I.td. (2012) 52 SOT 159 (Indore Trib.) Proposition 2: Non production of parties cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act: 1. CIT Vs. Victor Electrodes Ltd. 329 ITR 271 (Del HC) 2. CIT Vs. Orbital Communication (P.) Ltd. 327 ITR 560 (Del.HC) Blue Diamond 9 3. CIT Vs. Som Tobacco India Ltd (2014) 222 Taxman 58 (All. HC)(Mag) 4. ITO Vs. Elcon Alloys Ltd. (…

ASST CIT 10(3), MUMBAI vs. BLUE DIAMOND INFRASTRUCTURE & REALITY P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6119/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)