ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Sing

21 DTR 9Reported decision#23596 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 168Section 250

Judgments citing ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT v. S. Kamaljeet Sing

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

…Assessee in support of its case, has also relied on the following decisions: 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Тахтапп 18 (AII-HC) 4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC) 9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Assessee and the evidences on record, observed and found that the unsecured loan parties duly confirmed the ledger accounts of loan by providing its bank statement, ITR, acknowledgement and therefore the Assessee has d…

ITO, Income Tax Department vs. Ska Techinfra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

ITA 4369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…ssessee in support of its case, has also relied on the following decisions: 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Taxmann 18 (AII-HC) 4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC) 9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Assessee and the evidences on record, observed and found that the unsecured loan parties duly confirmed the ledger accounts of loan by providing its bank statement, ITR, acknowledgement and therefore the Assessee has…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sonali Punj, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3717/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3717 & 3718/Del./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2007-08) ACIT, CC – 13, vs. Ms. Sonali Punj, New Delhi. C – 21, Malcha Marg, Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi. (PAN : ABJPN1220F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate REVENUE BY : Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2015 ORDER PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These appeals, at the instance of the revenue, are directed against the ord…