ITO v. Nitesh Maheshwari

138 TTJ 116Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#13383 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 271aabsection 131(1a)business expediencysection 271aasection 260section 260asection 271asection 40a(3)reasoned ordersection 40asection 270a

Judgments citing ITO v. Nitesh Maheshwari

Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa vs. ACIT- (Central) Ujjain, Ujjain

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 227/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…ous courts between 10 to 12.5%. Some of the judgments’ wherein the rebate of CPWD rates and also rebate on account of self supervision have been allowed are summarized as under: S.No Reference Citation Rebate allowed for Supervision CPWD rate 1 ITO vs Nitesh 138 TTJ 116 (JP) 12% 20% Maheshwari 2 Rajeev Mewara 35 SOT 001 (Indore) 10% 25% 4 Shri Jagmohan Jaiswal (2008) 10 ITJ 187 (Trib- 10% 30% Indore) 6 Nandu Atmaram Rajput ITA No.1036 to 1041/ 12.5% 20% vs. DCIT, PN/2014 dt 05.08.2016 Pune 8 DCIT v. Smt. C.K. [2010] 6 ITR(T) 193 10% 15% Sumathy (Chennai) However, the appellant is in possession of actual payment…

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 207/IND/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…ous courts between 10 to 12.5%. Some of the judgments’ wherein the rebate of CPWD rates and also rebate on account of self supervision have been allowed are summarized as under: S.No Reference Citation Rebate allowed for Supervision CPWD rate 1 ITO vs Nitesh 138 TTJ 116 (JP) 12% 20% Maheshwari 2 Rajeev Mewara 35 SOT 001 (Indore) 10% 25% 4 Shri Jagmohan Jaiswal (2008) 10 ITJ 187 (Trib- 10% 30% Indore) 6 Nandu Atmaram Rajput ITA No.1036 to 1041/ 12.5% 20% vs. DCIT, PN/2014 dt 05.08.2016 Pune 8 DCIT v. Smt. C.K. [2010] 6 ITR(T) 193 10% 15% Sumathy (Chennai) However, the appellant is in possession of actual payment…

DCIT- (Central)-3, Indore vs. Mrs. Jatinder Kaur Bhatia, Khandwa

Appeals are dismissed and assessee’s

ITA 206/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 40A(3)Section 69

…ous courts between 10 to 12.5%. Some of the judgments’ wherein the rebate of CPWD rates and also rebate on account of self supervision have been allowed are summarized as under: S.No Reference Citation Rebate allowed for Supervision CPWD rate 1 ITO vs Nitesh 138 TTJ 116 (JP) 12% 20% Maheshwari 2 Rajeev Mewara 35 SOT 001 (Indore) 10% 25% 4 Shri Jagmohan Jaiswal (2008) 10 ITJ 187 (Trib- 10% 30% Indore) 6 Nandu Atmaram Rajput ITA No.1036 to 1041/ 12.5% 20% vs. DCIT, PN/2014 dt 05.08.2016 Pune 8 DCIT v. Smt. C.K. [2010] 6 ITR(T) 193 10% 15% Sumathy (Chennai) However, the appellant is in possession of actual payment…

Harsh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A)For Respondent: Ms. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)

…Act, and referred the matter for valuation before the District Valuation Officer, which was not done by ld. AO in the instant case. Since the books of accounts have been accepted, the expenditure towards construction recorded therein deserves to be accepted. 138 TTJ 116 ITO vs. NiteshMaheshwari (Jp ‘B’) Income from undisclosed sources – Addition – Cost of construction vis-a-vis reference to DVO – without rejecting books of account or without pointing out any defects in the books of account, the reference made to the DVO was not justified and no addition could be made on the basis of higher value adopted by DVO.…

ITO, Baran vs. Ganpati Plaza, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 545/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…by the authorities below. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction for 12% on account of self- supervision. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Nitesh Maheshwari 138 TTJ 116 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the Tribunal has granted 12% deduction for self- supervision. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee produced the affidavits of the tenants as well as some of the tenants were examined by the AO during the course of remand proceedings wherein all the tenants have accepted the fact that the ele…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 467/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…by the authorities below. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction for 12% on account of self- supervision. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Nitesh Maheshwari 138 TTJ 116 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the Tribunal has granted 12% deduction for self- supervision. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee produced the affidavits of the tenants as well as some of the tenants were examined by the AO during the course of remand proceedings wherein all the tenants have accepted the fact that the ele…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 466/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…by the authorities below. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction for 12% on account of self- supervision. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ITO vs. Nitesh Maheshwari 138 TTJ 116 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the Tribunal has granted 12% deduction for self- supervision. The ld. AR has pointed out that the assessee produced the affidavits of the tenants as well as some of the tenants were examined by the AO during the course of remand proceedings wherein all the tenants have accepted the fact that the ele…

ITO v. Nitesh Maheshwari (138 TTJ 116) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax