ITO v. Balaram Jakhar

98 TTJ 924Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#25974 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing ITO v. Balaram Jakhar

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…1998 SCC 410; iw. Ashwini Kumar 39 ITR 183 (Del.); v. Satnam Singh Chhabra 74 TTJ 976 (Luck.); vi. Ashadevi 101 TTJ 332 (Ahd.); vii. ACIT vs Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR (Trib.) 533 (Pat.); viii. Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla (supra) 24. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. Through Ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.23,00,000/-for alleged On-Money 26 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90…

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…1998 SCC 410; iw. Ashwini Kumar 39 ITR 183 (Del.); v. Satnam Singh Chhabra 74 TTJ 976 (Luck.); vi. Ashadevi 101 TTJ 332 (Ahd.); vii. ACIT vs Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR (Trib.) 533 (Pat.); viii. Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla (supra) 24. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the Ld. Lower authorities and the evidences on record. Through Ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the finding of Ld.CIT(A) deleting addition of Rs.23,00,000/-for alleged On-Money 26 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…st always be adjudged on the evidence led by the parties (Kalwa Devadattam v. Union of India, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 165, 175), Such stand and approach of the Assessing Officers has been disapproved by the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Balaram Jakhar (2005) 98 TTJ 924 (Amritsar ITAT) 5.9 As regards rest of the addition of Rs.2,44,60,000/-, being share capital and premium appearing in the name of 10 companies in the table given by the Assessing Officer, I further find that Assessing Officer has not been able to establish with any reliable evidence that such share capital is unexplained and received from non-exis…

ITO v. Balaram Jakhar (98 TTJ 924) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax