ITO v. Mayur Agarwal

43 DTR 116Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#16742 most cited
6

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

Also reported as

133 TTJ 1

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44AE

Issues it is cited on

section 133(6)section 143(2)section 143companysection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing ITO v. Mayur Agarwal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. JAIPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4990/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2012-13] Assistant Commissioner, Of Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Income Tax, Private Limited, Room No.316A, C.R. Vs 4741, Roshananra Road, Building, I.P Estate, Malkaganj, North Delhi, New New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110007 Pan Aaacj4124B Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Y.K. Mehan, Ca, Shri Dheeraj Kumar, Ca Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 143(3)

…served be upheld in law. In various judicial pronouncements, it has been held that ad hoc additions are not tenable in law. This has been held in:- a) 102 TTJ 882 (Pune) Lavrids Knudsen Maskin fabrik (India) Limited vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax b) 43 DTR 116 (TM) (Agra) ITO vs Mayur Aggarwal c) 254 ITR 673 (Guj) Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs CIT d) 73 ITD 189 (Del) Goodyear India Ltd vs ITO e) 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) Hughes Escorts Communications Limited vs JCIT f) 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) Sunder Mal Sat Pal vs ITO g) 81 TTJ 448 (Jodh) DCIT vs Surface Finishing Equipment h) 237 ITR 570 (SC) Manika Gems &Ors v ACIT i) 104 T…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…appellant is brought on record. It is further submitted that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the appellant could not be blamed – CIT v U M Shah, proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom) / ITO vs. Mayur Agarwal (2010) 133 TTJ 1 (Agra) TM. The AO has further failed to prove that the loans are nothing but income in the hands of appellant. The appellant further submits that loans are receipts not chargeable to tax and hence cannot be taxed. It is respectfully submitted that the Assessing Officer had not even expressed that he is not satisfied with the evidences produced by t…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 164/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ssessee has discharged its duty cast upon him and non-compliance to the summon issued u/s 131 of the Act by the person cannot be construed against him in this regard the appellant relied on the decision of ITAT, Agra Bench in the case of ITO vs. Mayur Agarwal 43 DTR 116 (Agra)(TM), wherein it is held that, Burden of proof-Once summons were duly served on the creditors, their identity is duly proved and the AO could not have drawn and inference against the assessee and made addition u/s 68 of the Act without enforcing the attendance of the parties to whom the summons were issued and served and without giving an op…

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3507/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR
Section 80I

…by the assessee, which are duly audited by an independent chartered accountant, there was no justification in rejecting the books of account and making the addition to the declared income. 5.6 The Hon'ble ITAT, Agra in the case of ITO vs Mayur Agarwal(2010) 133 TTJ 1 (Agra) was held that the books of account of the assessee could not be rejected by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act when no specific defect is pointed out in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee or the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. In CIT vs Jacksons House (2010) 195 Taxman 402 (De…

ITO, WD-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STOLL BERG INDIA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 310/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2006-07

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri K.Narsimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2006-07 Income Tax Officer, M/s Stoll Berg India Pvt. बनाम / Ward-11(1), P7 Ltd., 2, St. Georges Gate V/s. Road, 6th Floor, Hastings, Chowringhee Square, 6th Floor, Kolkata-700 022 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAFCS 0189 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Arup Chatterjee, JCIT-SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ashim Kumar Sinha, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-09-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 19-10-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Da…

M/S. SHIVGORI BUILDERS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 847/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…(A) and submitted that there was no basis for adopting the percentage of 50% while making the disallowance. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Lavrids Knudsen Maskinfabrik (India) Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT 102 TTJ 882 (Pune) " ITO Vs Mayur Aggarwal 43 DTR 116 (TM) (Agra) " Dinesh Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 673 (Guj) " Goodyear India Ltd. Vs ITO 73 ITD 189 (Del) " Hughes Escorts Communications Ltd. Vs JCIT 106 TTJ 1065 (Del) " Sunder Mal Sat Pal Vs ITO 94 TTJ 423 (Asr) " Trimurti Salt Company Vs ITO 12 TTJ 485 (Cal) " State of Orissa Vs Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 ITR 690 (SC) 6. The another s…