How many judgments cite ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra (143 ITD 686), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 250, Section 142(1).

ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra

143 ITD 686Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#2451 most cited

What is ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra authority for?

Section 68 cannot be invoked to make an addition for unexplained cash credits found in an assessee's bank account if the assessee has not maintained books of account. A bank passbook or bank statement is not considered a book maintained by the assessee for the purpose of Section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · bank passbook · bank statement · not books of account · assessee not maintaining books · addition under section 68 · cash deposits in bank · applicability of section 68

Also reported as

33 Taxmann.com 610

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 131

Issues it is cited on

addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 rule 46a unexplained cash credit section 69c section 115bb section 115b section 68 genuineness of the transaction section 115bbe section 69 previous year

Judgments citing ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra

NILESH JAIN,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(1), INDORE, INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 631/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, Ito 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Ajxpj3919M Assessee By Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253(5)Section 44ASection 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2011-12 Nilesh Jain, ITO 1(1) 1, Gandhi Chowk, Indore बनाम/ Chandrawati Ganj Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AJXPJ3919M Assessee by Shri Pankaj Mogra, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax…

PERUMAL SEKAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD 1(2). SALEM, SALEM

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1830/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Goutami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1830/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Perumal Sekar, ITO, 514, B, Arputhavasal, vs. Ward -1(2), Anna Nagar 1st Street, Salem. Near Class Factory, Attur, Salem – 636 102. [PAN: CRPPS-0022-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. ()यथ' क* ओर से/…

M/S BAJRANG LAL JINDAL,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur PAN: AANPJ5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- Kanpur, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- made t…

RUPESH KUMAR MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 971/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh choudhary, JCIT

Section 250Section 68

…an it be said that the passbook is maintained by the bank under the instructions of the constituent". It, accordingly, held that the bank passbook could not be regarded as a book maintained by the assessee. ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610/143 ITD 686 (Lucknow - Trib.) it was held that when the assessee had not maintained any books of account and the amounts were found credited in the bank account, the provisions of section 68 5 Rupesh Kumar Mittal, Jaipur. could not be invoked in respect of various deposits/credits in the bank account in the absence of books maintained by him. Aravali Tradi…

ACIT, NCC-2,, MADURAI vs. GANESAN ANBUSELVAM, THIRUTHANGAL

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3181/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा ,लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 v. The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ganesan Anbuselvam, Income Tax, No.11-FA, Standard Colony, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Thiruthangal, Thiruthangal, Madurai. Tamil Nadu-626 130. [PAN: ADQPA9937R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advoca…

SANDHI RAJA SEKHAR ,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 296/Viz/2024 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram. Ward-1, Pan: Axrps2387J Bhimavaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री के नरधिम्हाचारी, न्याधयक िदस्य एिं श्री एि बालाकृष्णन, लेखा िदस्य के िमक्ष BEFORE SHRIK NARASIMHA CHARY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. 296/Viz/2024 (ननधधारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Sandhi Raja Sekhar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram. Ward-1, PAN: AXRPS2387J Bhimavaram. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri GVN Hari, AR प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.…

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1538/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nilesh Popatlal Gada, V The Income Tax Officer, 201, Sai Siddhi Congress s Ward-2(4), Pune. Bhavan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005. PAN: AHOPS1114Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri A.D.Kulkarni – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 20/12/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER D…

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 863/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shri Dinesh Kumar Soni cuke The DCIT, House No. 89, Govind Nagar Vs. Central Circle-1, Jaipur. West, Amer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS2969J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.…

EKTA GARG,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Bansal, CA

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ekta Garg, ITO, Ward 1(2), Ghaziabad R/o KF 14 Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP 201002 vs. PAN ACSPG 3497 R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gaurav Bansal, CA Revenue For : Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of ld. CIT(A) Ghaziabad dated 31.01.2019 for AY 2015-16. 2. Although the assessee taken a…

NERALAKERE MARULASIDDAPPA DAYANANDA ,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/BANG/2023[2017-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2017-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Neralakere Marulasiddappa The Income-Tax Officer, Dayananda, Ward-1, S/O Ns Marulasiddappa, Vs. Chikmagalur. Neralekere Post, Tarikere. Pan – Aswpd 5306 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vevek A.R, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 2/2/2023 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. The Entire Appeal Order Passed By Learned Cit In So Far It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Principle Of Equity & Justice. 2. The Learned Ao Erred In Bringing Amount Of Rs.18.44 Lakhs To Tax Without Appreciating The Fact That, Appellant Is An Agriculturist & Has Given All Particulars Which Were Sought By The Learned Ao. 3. The Learned Ao Ought To Have Considered The Income Of Huf Also While Concluding The Assessment. Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri Vevek A.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni

Section 1Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Shri Neralakere Marulasiddappa The Income-tax Officer, Dayananda, Ward-1, S/o NS Marulasiddappa, Vs. Chikmagalur. Neralekere Post, Tarikere. PAN – ASWPD 5306 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vevek A.R, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 2/2/2…

CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO,MUMBAI vs. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Clayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. v. INT TAX WARD 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061 PAN: AXIPP2068E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA Department Represented by : Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR) Date of conclusion of Hearing : 30.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) CLAYTON CHARLES PINT…

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…ssee as held in case of CIT Vs Bhaichand H Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom). In case of Ms. Mayawati Vs DCIT 19 SOT 460 (Delhi), it was held that the passbook of bank cannot be treated as books of accounts. Again the Lucknow Bench in case of Kamal Kumar Mishra Vs. ITA 143 ITD 686 held that maintenance of books of assessee is a condition precedent for making addition u/ s 68 and, therefore, provisions of sec. 68 could not be invoked on the basis of deposits made in the bank account of assessee. Hence, the credit appearing in assessee' pass book/bank statement relevant to a particular previous year, where the assessee does…

SANTOSH DNYANESHWAR CHAVAN,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1061/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143Section 24Section 250Section 68

…in a 'third member' decision of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Raitani v. Asstt. CIT [2011] 10 taxmann.com 206/45 SOT 231 (Gau.) (TM), as well as by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610/143 ITD 686 (Luck. - Trib.). Thus in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts of the case read in light of the settled position of law, we are of the considered view that the addition made by the A.O in respect of the cash deposit of Rs.10,53,000/-(supra) in the bank account of the assessee by invoking Section 68 has to fail for the very reason that as per the ju…

SRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC +C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N.CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. ITO, C/o. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi PAN: AZPPS2130R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Timsi Sharma, CA Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/10/2019 Date of pronouncement 13/01/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Ghaziaba…

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 628/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68

…sessee is not maintaining books of account, no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income Tax Officer 164 ITR 296 Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra 143 ITD 686 (Lucknow) 4 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the income surrendered by the assessee is income from other sources and, therefore, the business losses declared by the assessee are eligible for set off against the said income. 3.1. As regards not allowing the opening cash balance as source of deposit in the bank,…

SH. JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) Para 4 to 7 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) Para 5 10 6. Om Prakash Delhi E Bench in ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) Para 5 to 8 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT 143 ITD 686 Para 7 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT SMC Bench in ITA 2414/Del/2016 (30/12/2016)Para 7 9. On contrary, Ld. Sr. DR referring to definition of “books, books of account” as defined under section 2(12A) of the Act, submitted that, it is not an inclusive definition in order to restrict meaning of what is referred to therein. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that bank…

PRITY GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…gh Gill Delhi SMC Bench Para 4 to 7 in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC bench Para 5 in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E bench in Para 5 to 8 ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT Para 7 143 ITD 686 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT SMC Para 7 bench in ITA 2414/Del/2016 (30/12/2016) 9. Vijay Kumar Prop. Delhi ITAT F Para 13 & 14 V.K. Medical Hall bench ITA No. 2483/Del/2015 (27/11/2018) 10. INDER SINGH, Delhi ITAT B Para 5 bench 8.4 In above decisions notably it is also held that ITAT at this belated stage can’t improve the order of AO and covert the…

NISHANK GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

PREM RATTAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

VISHAL KASHYAP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3