ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT

32 TTJ 300Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#24609 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 151Section 78(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 133(6)section 68companybusinessdocument

Judgments citing ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA. vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1776/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by the Courts in the following judicial pronouncements: (i) R.B.N.J. Naldu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR) 194(Nag.); (ii) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 1TR 56(AlI.)…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. TRUFORM TECHNO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 78(2)

…as held by the judicial forums in the following decisions: (i) CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Ass.); (iv) ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1998) 32 TTJ 300 (Pune ITAT). The appellant's prima facie reasonable explanation cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicious or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds as held by the Courts in the following judicial pronouncements: (i) R.B.N.J. Naldu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR) 194(Nag.); (ii) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 1TR 56(AlI.)…

SWARN GEMS P LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…fund received. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corpn. 103 ITR 344 (Patna) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) xi) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 94 ITR 680 (Bom) xii) Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. vs.…

ITR 349 (SC); (ii) Sarogi Credit Corp. V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.); (iii) Tolaram Daga v. CIT (32 TTJ 300) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax