Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

11 ITD 422Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1985#14571 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also reported as

28 SOT 26036 TTJ 538

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 4Section 5Section 9

Issues it is cited on

companyindiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

Manoj Kumar Khubani, Barmer vs. Dc Cen Cir 2 Jdh, Jodhpur

In the result, stands ALLOWED

ITA 376/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 376/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manoj Kumar Khubani Vs. The DCIT M/s Maa Ambey Electronics, Central Circle-2 Old Bus Stand, Barmer Jodhpur PAN No.: AGDPK6495N Appellant Respondent Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2025 ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), Jaipur dat…

Chand Monammad, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer

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

ITA 340/JPR/2022[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram SumnomalCavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxm…

Amar Singh Saharan, Churu vs. ITO, Ward-2, Churu

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

ITA 83/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradshri Amar Singh Saharan, Vs Ito, S/O-Shri Chimna Ram, Ward-2, Dhani-Asha, Tehsil- Churu Taranagar, Churu-331304. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Drbps4493E Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Amar Singh Saharan, vs ITO, S/o-Shri Chimna Ram, Ward-2, Dhani-Asha, Tehsil- Churu Taranagar, Churu-331304. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. DRBPS4493E Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT DR Date of hearing 23/03/2023 Date of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.: The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2013-14 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 04.06.2019. The assessee…

Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bikaner

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavashok Kumar Banthia, Vs. D.C.I.T., Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Central Circle, Gangashahar, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aixpb 4919 N Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Adv. & Shri Sudarshan Jhabak, Ca. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 07/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Order Passed By The Assessing Authority & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal & Against The Law. 2. That The Order Is Illegal In View Of The Fact That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) As Well As The Assessing Authority Fails To Cross Examine The Deponent Of The Affidavits Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. In View Of Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Delivered In The Case Of M/S Mehta Parekha & Co., The Contents Of The Affidavit Should Have Been Accepted. 3. That The Assessment Completed In The Hands Of The Assessee Is Not Justified Because The Amount Belongs To M/S Lux Industries Limited As Admitted By The Director Of The Company. Therefore, The Assessment Is Illegal.

For Appellant: “1. That the
Section 132Section 143(3)

…the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs CIT 30 ITR, 181 (SC), Dr. Prakash Rathi Vs ITO 36 TW 1 (Jodh ITAT), ITO Vs Doctor Tej Gopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jodh ITAT), Labh Chand Bohra Vs ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj), Shrikumar Vs ITO 36 TTJ 538, Smt. Savitri Devi Vs ITO 11 ITD 422 Delhi, CTO Vs Kewal Ram Sumnomal Cavanduspur 92 STC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalax…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21((3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1637/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus cast upon i…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21((3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1634/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus cast upon i…

Vasant Ramji Savla, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18((1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1633/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhamesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ders , no addition could be made u/s 68 of the Act : - i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 21 taxmann.com. 159 (Guj) iii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj) iv) Golden Remedies (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 28 SOT 260 (Del-Trib) v) Shri Rakesh Kumar Bharagava vs. ITO ITA No. 3432/Del/2015 dated 17.09.2015 vi) Umesh Electricals vs. ACIT 131 ITD 128 (Agra-Trib) (TM) vii) CIT vs. Kamaljeet Singh 147 Taxman 18 (All) viii) CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The learned A.R. submitted that since the assessee has sufficiently discharged the onus cast upon i…