Jashvidhyaben C. Mehta v. CIT

172 ITR 680High Court1988#19498 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 57(iii)

Judgments citing Jashvidhyaben C. Mehta v. CIT

Industries Association of Chandigarh, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 760/CHANDI/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 760/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Industries Association of बनाम The ITO Chandigarh Ward, Chandigarh 140, Industrial Area, Phase-2 Chandigarh- 160002 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAAAI0450K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Vineet Krishan, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : S…

Shri. Chandrakant R Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 380/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodshri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Pr. Commissioner Of 61, Sadhna Daftary Road, Income-Tax (Central) -30, R. No. 541, 5Th Floor, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai – 400097 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan – Aabpa8047N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 57

…the bank did not reduce his income by way of interest on the fixed deposit by him in the bank. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Jashvidhyaben C. Mehta vs. CIT (1988) 67 CTR (Guj) 239 : (1988) 172 ITR 680 (Guj) : TC 41R.709. This was in respect of moneys deposited in three different accounts of a firm and it was found, as a fact, that the real income that the assessee drew from the firm was reduced by her dues to the firm. The facts of the case are totally different from those before us. 6. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The orders under…

Shri Rashmin Ramniklal Vora, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1066/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shreekant S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

…x, West... on 4 May, 1951 Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 278, 1951 SCR 594 (2) Hamendra Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Laws(RAJ) - 1987 - 7 – 67 (3) Jashvidyaben C. Mehta vs. Commissioner Of Income - Tax on 29 September, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 172 ITR 680 Guj and (4) R. Dalmia vs C.I.T., Delhi, New Delhi on 21 September, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 2394, 1978 SCR (1) 537 are applicable as the facts of the case of the assessee are distinguishable from the facts of the judicial pronouncements referred by the ld. counsel. In the light of the above facts and finding, we observe that as per spe…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepak Shashi Bhushan Roy, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal raised

ITA 3204/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahaha & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat Room No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha Chs Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 Pan:Aaapr 7703 F

For Respondent: Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(a)Section 234BSection 254(1)

…ike Mumbai where the capital outlay in purchases of property yield very lower rental income compared to the total investment in the property. The ld AR further submits that reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in Jashvidhyaben C Mehta versus CIT (172 ITR 680)(Gujarat) by ld CIT(A) is misplaced. In that case the actual occupant in the property was cousin of the assessee and her family, however, in the case in hand the own daughter to reside therein. 6. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of assessing officer. The assessee himself offered the Mumbai Flat for deemed income…