(i) Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

94 ITR 1High Court1974#4549 most cited

What is (i) Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

An affidavit cannot be rejected by the Assessing Officer unless the deponent is discredited in cross-examination or fails to produce supporting evidence when required.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT · 1974 · 94 ITR 1 · Bombay High Court · affidavit rejection · cross-examination · supporting evidence · deponent's credibility · natural justice · Assessing Officer

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 131(1A)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

violation of natural justicecreditworthiness of the creditorshare application moneydocuments seizedaddition u/s 68section 132(4)section 131reason to believeaccommodation entryundisclosed incomegenuineness of the transactionsearch and seizure

Judgments citing (i) Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ontents of the affidavits. The contents of affidavits, which are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ontents of the affidavits. The contents of affidavits, which are not vague should be accepted correct. For this proposition, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Born); (iii) Malwa Knitting Works Vs CIT (1977) 107 ITR 379, 381 MP (iv) Sri Krishna Vs CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All). 23. While deleting the addition of Rs. 1,14,16,666/- out of addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/-, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition of Rs. 50 ITA 124 to 126/JP/2019 & 286 to 288/JP/2019_ Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs DCIT 7,79,378/- by…

Harish Narinder Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 100/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADVFor Respondent: SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 100/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 HARISH NARINDER SALVE, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 37(1), 6E & 6F, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, ROOM NO. 2005, NEW DELHI – 11 0001 E-2, CIVIC CENTER, (PAN: AHFPS7386B) JL NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110002 (RESPONDENT) (ASSESSEE) Assessee by: SH. SACHIT JOLLY, ADV. Revenue by:SH. ARUN KUMAR YADAV, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXVIII, New Delhi re…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 24 of 33 virtues. The gifts were made because he was a head of the sect. “Unsolicited” donations received by an evangelist could therefore be taxable. 31. In Dilip Kumar Roy vs. CIT, (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom.), Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee to enable him to build a temple on account of voluntary payments, was held not to be income. These payments were made keeping in mind the personal esteem and venerated position, a fact which was not denied by the Revenue and accepted by the Court as true. 32. In Lacchmandas vs. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR…

Aroon Purie vs. Commr.of Income Tax

ITA - 232 / 2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 24 of 33 virtues. The gifts were made because he was a head of the sect. “Unsolicited” donations received by an evangelist could therefore be taxable. 31. In Dilip Kumar Roy vs. CIT, (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom.), Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee to enable him to build a temple on account of voluntary payments, was held not to be income. These payments were made keeping in mind the personal esteem and venerated position, a fact which was not denied by the Revenue and accepted by the Court as true. 32. In Lacchmandas vs. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…Page 24 of 33 virtues. The gifts were made because he was a head of the sect. “Unsolicited” donations received by an evangelist could therefore be taxable. 31. In Dilip Kumar Roy vs. CIT, (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom.), Rs. 1 lakh received by the assessee to enable him to build a temple on account of voluntary payments, was held not to be income. These payments were made keeping in mind the personal esteem and venerated position, a fact which was not denied by the Revenue and accepted by the Court as true. 32. In Lacchmandas vs. CIT, (1980) 124 ITR…