Income-tax Officer v. Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora

3 SOT 96Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#12626 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 69 section 148 transfer company section 14 nfac document

Judgments citing Income-tax Officer v. Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora

RAHUL NEMGONDA PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2522/PUN/2024[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025

For Appellant: \nDepartment by

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…double taxation of the same income as the amounts withdrawn\nwould be always available against the deposit. In support thereof, he relied\non the decision of the Chennai ITAT in the case of B. Jenson Thanaraj, 83\ntaxmann.com 243, Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora, 3 SOT 96 and Venkat\nReddy, 76 taxmann.com 128, copies of which are placed on record. He\nsubmitted a chart disclosing the working of peak credit of Rs.15,27,000/-\nwhich is reproduced below :\n\"1. Bank of Baroda having account no. 11560100003684:\nThis is the main account in which the cash deposit and withdrawal\ntransactions have taken place, we attach he…

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1476/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1475/Pun/2024&1476/Pun/2024 धििाारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16& 2016-17 Fakroddin Dawal Patel, 9, D, Income Tax Officer, Latur Market Yard, Latur, Maharashtra-413512 Vs Pan No. Aqapp3436F Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

Section 69A

…dy v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-8 (2), Hyderabad [2016] 76 taxmann.com 128 (Hyderabad Trib.) c. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur v. Fertilizer Traders [2014] 42 taxmann.com 476 (Allahabad) d. Income-tax Officer v. Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora [2004] 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) e. Commissioner of Income-tax -VI, Hyderabad v. Purushottam Jhawar [2013] 40 taxmann.com 533 (Andhra Pradesh) Kindly accept the cash statement submitted with CIT(A) alongwith and we request your Honour to kindly delete the addition made and oblige. 5.Also, the appellant is a small trader and is not aware of the complex procedures of assess…

FAKRODDIN DAWAL PATEL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

In the result both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1475/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Section 69A

MOHD. MURTUZA SIDDIQUI,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 155/ALLD/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69Section 80C

…oney u/s 69A. Support in this regard is derived from the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Kanpur v. Fertilizer Traders [2014] 42 taxmann.com 476 (Allahabad) 2. Income Tax Officer v. Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora [2004] 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot Tribunal) 3. S. Venkat Reddy v. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad ( 2016) 76 taxmann.com 128.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has clearly stated in the assessment order that notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.02.2012 by Registered Post. Once, the notice was issued at the correct address of th…

SHRI NITIN PAREKH, HUF,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 923/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.923/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Nitin Parekh-Huf Ito बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(4), 7, Shreepalli Madhuvanvatika, Vs. Vadodara Near Vaikunth Society, Gotri Road, Vadodara-390021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaf Hn2 369 N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri L. P. Jain, SR.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2014] 41 taxmann.com 323 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) has held that in case of recycling of cash in business, addition should be made on basis of peak credit as appearing in cash flow statement. Hon'ble Rajkot bench of ITAT has, in ITO vsMaheshkumarJayantilaiVora [2004] 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) held that for making additions on account of unexplained cash deposits, only peak credit should be taken, as by aggregating deposits, they tend to be taxed twice. Hon'ble Rajkot bench of ITAT has, in ITO vs.MaheshkumarJayantilaiVora [2004] 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) held that for making additions on account of unexplained cash deposits, only peak cr…

I.T.O., WARD - 30(4)/KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SMT. RITA SINGH, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2463/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2463/Kol/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito, Ward-30(4), Kolkata Vs. Smt. Rita Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCA

Section 143(3)

…g addition u/s. 68 on the basis of cash deposit only peak credit needs to be considered. In this respect, I have also observed the principles decided in the following judgments: a) INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. MAHESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL VORA ITAT, RAJKOT BENCH - (2004) 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) Wherein it is held that income from undisclosed sources-Cash credits-Addition- Mode of -While making addition under s. 68 on the basis of cash deposits, only peak credits should be considered - By aggregating all deposits, they tend to get taxed twice which is against the principles of taxation. While making addition under s. 68 on the basi…

NIRAJAN LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the direction herein above

ITA 92/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 148

…t of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Purushottam Jhawar (2014) 220 Taxman 74 (AP). The ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Mahesh Kumar Jayantilal Vora, 3 SOT 96 (Rajkot) in support of the contention that in the case of unexplained deposit, only peak credits should be taken as by aggregating the deposits, they tends to get taxed twice. 5.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Dayal Si…

ITO 25(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. SUNIL KUMAR MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result ground No.4 is PARTLY ALLOWED

ITA 5319/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A Ojha

Section 143(3)

…04/2008. This working of peak credit had also been accepted to be correct by AO in the remand report dated 06/05/2013. The several judicial decisions relied by ld. AR also supports the case of the appellant. In the case of ITO vs. Maheshkumar Jayantilal Vora [3 SOT 96], Hon'ble ITAT Rajkot decided that - while making addition under s.68 on the basis of cash deposits, only peak credits should be considered and by aggregating all deposits, they tend to get taxed twice which is against the principles of taxation. In the case of Sanjay Kumar Jain vs. CIT [118 Taxman 821], Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided that - to…