How many judgments cite Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT (57 ITR 21), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 69C, Section 10(38), Section 132.

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT

57 ITR 21Supreme Court of India1965#1690 most cited

What is Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT authority for?

The onus is on the Income Tax Department to prove that a particular receipt or amount is taxable and falls under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT · 57 ITR 21 · onus of proof · burden on revenue · taxable receipt · department's onus · Section 143(3) · Section 69C · Section 132 · Section 153A · income tax · proving income.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 69C Section 10(38)Section 132 Section 153A Section 271AAB

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement section 271aab bogus long term capital gain retracted statement dumb documents transfer of capital asset short term capital gain section 10(38)long term capital gains loose papers documents seized section 45

Judgments citing Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 162/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Shri Surender Meena PCIT, Vs. 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPM 8554Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Avdhesh Kumar…

G.Neelavathy, Pondicherry vs. ITO Ward 5, Pondicherry

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

ITA 2915/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…record to trigger such a I.T.A. No.2915/Chny/2018 7 contention. Hence, there is no substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this appeal.” 6.1 We also noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram vs. CIT, (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) categorically held that commodity purchased and sold, not in ordinarily commercial sense and the manner of dealing with the commodity does not term the transaction as trading venture. Further, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court also held in the case of CIT vs. Nathalal Dahyabhai, (1980) 126 ITR 555 that mere ownership of an immovable property, even if…

M/S Futuristic Diagnostic Imaging Centre Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan .M, CIT DR

Section 234Section 51

…enefits arising thereof needs to be given to assessee. 7. In support of, the Ld.AR placed reliance on the following decisions. Page 8 of 15 i. CIT (Central) v. Bagmane Developers (P.) Ltd [2017] 392 ITR 379 (Karnataka) ii. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii. Sri Gajalakshmi Ginning Factory Ltd. V. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 502 (Madras) iv. CIT v. Kasturi Estates (P.) Ltd. [1966] 62 ITR 578 (Madras) v. CIT v. A. Mohammed Mohideen [1989] 176 ITR 393 (Madras) vi. CIT v. Raunaq Singh Swaran Singh [1972] 85 ITR 220 (Delhi) vii. Bhogilal H. Patel v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 692 (Bombay) viii. CIT v. Suresh Chand…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (OSD), Circle-7, Pune vs. M/S. Adrus Estate and Properties LLP, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 544/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.544/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Percy Paridwala / Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendudas

…iod of six years coupled with the conduct of the respondent / assessee by showing the land as investment, profits can not be assessed to tax under the head Business Profits. he placed reliance on the following decisions : • Janaki Ram Bahadu Ram Vs CIT (SC) 57 ITR 21 • CIT Vs. Baguio Investment Pvt. Ltd – Bomby High Court (ITA 998/2011) • CIT Vs. Nathuram Ramnarayan (P) Ltd – Bombay High Court 151 ITR 767. • CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates P. Ltd – Madras High Court 62 ITR 578. • PCIT Vs. John Poomkudy – Kerala High Court – 101 taxmann.com 244. Finally, he submits that the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High C…

M/S Unicorn Agro Tech Limited, Secunderabad vs. The Asst. Commisisoner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

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

ITTA/48/2009HC Telangana16 Mar 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…of one kind or other depends on the question whether the excess is an enhancement of the value by realizing the security or a gain in an operation of profit making. Further it was pointed 11 (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) 12 (1970) 77 ITR 253 (SC) ITA NO. 48 OF 2009 REPORTABLE Page 13 of 19 out that the assessee might invest his capital in shares with the intention to resell these if in future there sale b…

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3967/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…ion and such burden has not been discharged by the AO. In order to bring certain sum to tax, the onus is on the Revenue to prove that the said sum has the character of income chargeable to tax in India. Reliance placed on Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) 9.24 I have noted that no enquiry had been done by the AO in relation to the plethora of seized material found during the course of the search operation, regarding the closed down finance business of the Appellant. It had been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (201^&G^)TR (Del) 299 that in…

Shri.Babulal, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Wad-2(2)(4), Bangalore

ITA 887/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel

Section 54Section 54F

…." 11. The Supreme Court has also laid down that cases of commercial commodities stand on different footing from land. A transaction of purchase of land cannot be assumed without more to be a venture in the nature of trade Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and P.M.Mohammed Meerakhan Vs. (1969) 73 ITR 735 (SC) It was also held that land is not generally or ordinarily a trading commodity unlike, for example, manufactured articles that are normally the subject-matter of trade. Land, on the other hand, is often the subject-matter of investment CIT Vs. Kasturi Estates (P) Ltd. (1966) 62 ITR 578 (Mad)…

M/S. Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Circle-6

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 784/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 10Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…yment paid to non-resident is not chargeable to tax under the Income tax Act but he has not brought any material on record that these non residents have any PE or business connection in India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT 57 ITR 21 has held that it is for the 12 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT revenue to establish that profit earned in a transaction is within the taxing provision and is on that account liable to be taxed as income. Therefore, without bringing any material on record that these persons have any PE/ business connection in India, it cannot be assumed…

Haresh Khiamal Nanwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the order passed by the Ld

ITA 6534/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Haresh Khiamal Nanwani, Acit-17(1), Room No. Ab-117, 1017/1018, Dalamal Tower, Vs. Staff Room-135, Aayakarbhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, 211, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan No. Adgpn9628J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…R 594(SC), where it was held that the character of a transaction cannot be determined solely on the application of any abstract rule, principle or test but must depend upon all the facts and circumstances of the case. Also in Janki Ram Bhadur Ram v. CIT(1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the assessee, even at the time of acquisition had a clear intention to resell it, that would be material but not a decisive consideration. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to agree with the treatment given by the assessee in his return of income as gains/loss fr…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…instead of deciding the issue himself he should have directed the Assessing Officer to make enquiry and examine the issue afresh. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v/s CIT, [1995] 57 ITR 21 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Dhable & Ors., [1993] 202 ITR 98 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Kiran Hirji Shah, [2015] 231 Taxman 670 (Bom.); 6 Gordon Bruce Serrao vi) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bo…

Sunita Adukia, Ranchi vs. DCIT Cir-2, Ranchi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar Adukia, Vyapar Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi Bhawan, Lalji Hirji Road, S.N.G. Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AAWPA 4845 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunita Adukia, Vyapar Bhawan, Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Ranchi Lalji Hirji Road, S.N.G. Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AAWPA 4846 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mittal, CA Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 29/08/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/20…

Harshadkumar Amrutlal Patel, Mehsana vs. DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 361/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 361/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R

…, Ahmedabad in the case of Shri Ajitkumar T. Patel Vs. DCIT for A.Y.2008-09 in ITA N0.826/AHD/2010, Deepchand & Co. Vs. CTT(107-ITR-716(Allahabad High Court, CIT Vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari (2006) 155 Taxmann 214 (Gujarat High Court, JankiRam Bahadur Ram(1965) 57 ITR 21 (Supreme Court) which all have been reproduced in the case of Shri Ajitkumar T. Patel(Supra). On the strength of the contentions with judicial citations, the appellant stated that the transaction of purchase and sale of land should not be considered as adventure in the nature of business and the capital gain as declared in the return of income be a…

The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar vs. Sh. Shiv Raj Singh Bawa, Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s CO, dismissed

ITA 407/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 407/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…led, and we may in this regard, for the sake of completeness of our order, refer to some celebrated decisions by the Apex Court settling the law in the matter, viz. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. v. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC); Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC); Khan Bahadur Ahmed Alladin & Sons v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 573 (SC); CIT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. [1975] 100 ITR 706 (SC). The reference by the ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, to decisions in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1972]…

Sh. Parminder Singh, Kapurthala vs. A.C.I.T, Central Circle- I, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 329/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.329(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.329(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 Sh. Parminder Singh Vs. Asst. CIT, Gopal Park, Kapurthala Central Circle-I, Jalandhar [PAN:ACMPS 6748R] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Surinder Mahajan (Ld. CA) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 28.11.2018 Date of pronouncement: 19.12.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the order dated 03.02.2017, passed by the Ld. CI…

ITO Ward-10(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 302/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy& Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 302/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Kolkata..………....................................….….……………….…......Appellant M/S. Aum Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.....................…..…….……………………………………………..……Respondent 5, Lower Rowdon Street Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan: Aaaco 7624 B] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 7Th,2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 28Th,2018 Order Per S.S. Godara, Jm :- This Revenue’S Appeal For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 18/11/2016 Passed In Case No. Ita No.1125/Cit(A)-4/Range-10/Kol/14015 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’).

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(5)

…of the operation involved. Saroj Kumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 242 (SC). (e) No single fact has any decisive significance and the question must depend upon the collective effect of all the relevant materials brought on record. Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT, 57 ITR 21 (SC). 9. The above tests have again been reiterated by the CBDT in its Circular referred to by the AO in the order of assessment. Keeping in mind, the above broad principles, we shall now examine the case of the assessee. The assessee during the previous year had entered into transactions of purchase of shares giving raise to long term capital gain…

Shivkumar Radheshyam Sharma, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Sabana Parveen

Section 143(3)Section 50C

…the intention of the purchaser at the time of purchase was relevant. This proposition of law is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases. i) CIT Vs. PVK Co. Ltd. (1966) 66 ITR 65 (SC) ii) Janki Ram Bahadur Ram Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) iii) Sarojkumar Mazumdar Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 242(SC) The decisions relied on by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case under appeal, as in the said decisions the assessee had transferred plot which was stock in trade of the assessee, whereas in the case under appeal the impugned plot was not stock in trade but fixed asset.…

Manaz Retail P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 7636/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manz Retail P. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-8(2) Knowledge House, Shyam Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Respondent Appellant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcit-10(2)(2), R. No. Manz Retail P. Ltd. 209, 2Nd Floor, Knowledge House, Shyam Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari – Road, Mumbai-400020 Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai- 400060. Pan No. Aaacm1978J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Vipul Joshi,Ar Revenue By : Mr. Neil Philip, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2018

For Appellant: Mr.Vipul Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Neil Philip, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…nvestment was made and the possibility of enhanced values motivated the investment (see [Leeming v. Jones (1930) 15 TC 333 (HL)] and also the decisions of this court in Saroj Kumar Mazumdar v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 242 (SC) and Janki Ram Bahadur Ram v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 21 (SC). Manz Retail P. Ltd. In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fraser [(1942) 24 TC 498, 502] Lord Normand said: ‘The individual who enters into a purchase of an article or commodity may have in view the resale of it at a profit, and yet it may be that that is not the only purpose for which he purchased the article or the commodity, nor the only p…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, Pune

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1298/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

…n to the said paragraph 5.3 of CIT(A)‟s order and submitted that the CIT(A) granted relief relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Roopa J Gupta the case of CIT Vs. PKN Co. Ltd. (1966) 60 ITR 65 (SC), Saroj Kumar Majumdar Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 21 (SC) and the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit in ITA No.1121 of 2009, dated 06.01.2010. Further, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Apoorva Patni Vs. Addl.CIT in ITA No.239/PN/2011, relating to assessment y…

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, Pune

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1297/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148

Income Tax Officer, Pune vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, Pune

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1296/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 148