How many judgments cite Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO (219 CTR 571), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 133A.

Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

219 CTR 571High Court2008#2660 most cited

What is Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO authority for?

When an assessee establishes the identity of creditors who have confirmed credits advanced by account payee cheques, the initial onus under Section 68 for cash credits is discharged. The assessee is not required to establish the 'source of the source,' meaning the capacity of the lender to advance money, nor can an addition be sustained solely because a creditor fails to respond to a Section 133(6) notice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Labh Chand Bohra v ITO · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · identity of creditor · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · source of source · Section 133(6) notice · discharge of initial onus · addition not sustained

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

source of source retraction of statement paper company creditworthiness of the creditor addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction share application money entry operator addition under section 68 section 131 unexplained cash credit reasoned order

Judgments citing Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO

SATISH SAWARMAL SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Section 250Section 69A

…issued u/s.133(6), when all the\ndetails are furnished to justify identity and creditworthiness of\nthe lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The Assessee\nin support of its case, has also relied on the following\ndecisions:\n1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC)\n2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC)\n3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Тахтапп 18 (AII-HC)\n4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC)\n9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar\nfact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the\nAssessee and the evidences on record, observed and found…

RITIKA GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4495/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 68

…of cash in the the before giving cheques the conclusion that the money Therefore, it was held that there is inquiry so to appreciate & evaluate the evidence over again. 10 Ritika Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. In that case of Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) it was held that; Identity of the creditors having been established who have confirmed the credits by making statements on oath and the amounts having been advanced by account payee cheques, impugned addition in respect of the entries in the names of said creditors cannot be sustained. Capacity of the lender to advance money to the as…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

ITA 1352/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

…assessee himself, action of Assessing Officer appeared to be based on mere suspicion and, thus, addition required to be deleted - Held, yes [Paras 9 & 10] [In favour of assessee] Labh Chand Bohra vs. Income-tax Officer [2010] 189 Taxman 141 (Rajasthan)/[2008] 219 CTR 571 (Rajasthan)[28-04-2008] Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Whether where amounts found as cash credits in assessee's account books had been advanced by lenders by account payee cheques; identity of creditors had been established; their confirmations were available and they had also confirmed credits by making statements on oa…

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

…ese the affidavits could not be ignored. The appellant would also like to place reliance in this regard on the following decisions - 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 SumnomalCavanduspur92 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 Liikmed Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj)…

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

ITA 941/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…s not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the last, he placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements and prayed for the deletion of the additions so made:- [i] Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj.); [ii] Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (Raj.HC) 219 CTR 571; [iii] Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO 220 CTR 622 (Raj.); [iv] CIT vs Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP); [v] Tolaram Daga vs CIT 59 ITR 632 (Assam); [vi] CIT vs Shri Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (Pun. & Har.); and [vii] Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT & another 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati). 4. On the other hand, Ld. Sr.DR for the Revenue vehemently supported th…

ITO, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. SKA TECHINFRA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

ITA 4369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…ce issued u/s. 133(6), when all the details are furnished to justify identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The Assessee in support of its case, has also relied on the following decisions: 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Taxmann 18 (AII-HC) 4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC) 9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Assessee and the evidences on record, observed and found that…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DEVINE INFRACON PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…(SC) Page22 ii) Metachem 245 /TR 360 (MPHC) iii) Nem Chand Kothari 264 1TR 254 (Gau) iv) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. IT.A.C. LTD: (ITA 1194/2007) v) Rajokri Farms Pvt Ltd (ITA 1410/2008); vi) Diamond Products 177 Taxman 331- vii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. /TO 219 CTR 571 HC (Raj) viii) Aravali Trading Co vs ITO 220 CTR 622 HC (Raj); ix) Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Micro Melt (P.) Ltd. 177Taxman 35 HC (Guj) 5.12 It is further submitted that while making the impugned additions of Rs. 35 crores, learned AO did not bring any evidence to rebut the evidences furnished by the 'As regards the second contention, we a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. VISTA NIRMAN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 1340/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)

…IT v. Paradise Inland Shipping (P.) Ltd., 400 ITR 439 (Bom) (v) SLP against the order has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 23.04.2018 reported in 93 taxmann.com 84 (vi) Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT, 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (vii) Labh Chand Bohra v. ITO, 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (viii) CIT vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd., 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) (ix) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT, 103 ITR 344 (Patna) (x) DCIT v. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (xi) Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO, 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (xii) ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd., 70 SOT 368 (xiii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2004) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) (xiv) CI…

SH. BIMAL PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 68

…ed in the income of the assessee. The additions made in the income of the assessee of the aforesaid account are directed to be deleted and demand notice to be accordingly modified. There shall be no order as to costs.” Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:- 4 SHRI BIMAL PRAKASH AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 8. Examining the present case even on these parameters, first requirement is not relevant. So far as second requirement is concerned, there is no doubt about initial burden being on the assessee…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…essee and lenders are assessed to tax and have furnished their bank statements, copies of income tax return and copies of their balance sheets, no addition qua such credits can be made. Reliance was placed on the judgments ; • Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO, (Raj), 219 CTR 571 • Aravali Trading Co. vs. I.T.O. 220 CTR 622 (H.C. of Raj) • CIT vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal: Income Tax Appeal no. 179 of 2008 dt. 17.11.2009 (Allahabad High Court). • Mangilal Agarwal (Late) vs. ACIT 300 ITR 372 (Raj) • CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 4.1 It was submitted that once assessee points out the depositor from whom he has…

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

…position, we found support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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…

SANDEEP MALOO,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 613/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsandeep Maloo Vs. Dcit-Cc-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afcpm7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Jayant Bhatt Respondent By : Kishore Dhule Date Of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-47, Mumbai, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2013- 14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Kishore Dhule

Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…P a g e | 1 Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sandeep Maloo Vs. DCIT-CC-1(1) Shree Radhey, 21-C, Pratishtha Bhawan, Barwara House, M.K. Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Mumbai – 400 020 Rajasthan- 302001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFCPM7905F Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Jayant Bhatt Respondent by : Kishore Dhule Date of Hearing 12.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed aga…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…an be asked to prove the source of credit in books, but cannot be asked to prove the source of the source has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements : (i). Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj) (ii). Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj) (iii). CIT Vs. Dwarkadish Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) (iv). Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) (v). Aravali Trading Co. Vs. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) (vi) Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2004) 3264 ITR 254 (Gau) (vii). CIT Vs. Vacmet Packaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 217 (All) (viii). CIT Vs…

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

ALWAR GENERAL FINANCE CO. (P) LTD,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

ITA 332/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Meel, JCIT) a

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 68

…e. Therefore, addition of Rs. 16,000 in the income of assessee as cash credit in the name of Sri Devendra Sankhla cannot be sustained. Such addition of income of assessee has to be deleted from the income of assessee.” Labh Chand Bohra Vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141/ 219 CTR 571 (Raj.) (HC) The jurisdictional HC while deleting the addition u/s 68 of the Act held as follows:- 8. Examining the present case even on these parameters, first requirement is not relevant. So far as second requirement is concerned, there is no doubt about initial burden being on the assessee. So far as third requirement is concerned, obviously if…

NOBLE TRADELINK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 302/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 68

…24-01-2022 (Mum. Trib) 5. Pr.CIT, Udaipur vs Shubh Mines Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA No. 96/15 order dated 03-05-2016 (Raj-HC) 6. Aravali Trading Co. vs ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (Raj-HC) 7 Kanhaialal Jangid vs ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (Raj-HC) 8. Labh Chand Bohra vs ITO (2008) 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) In the end, the ld.AR of the assessee prayed that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) amounting to Rs. 80 lacs should be deleted. 4.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. To this effect, the ld. DR relied on following case laws. 1.Pr. CIT vs Swati Bajaj (2022) 139 Taxmann.com 352 (Cal.) 2. S…

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI. SURESH GURUBUXSING WADHWA, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…books of account had been fully examined and had been substantiated also with necessary documentary evidences. The ld. CIT(A) has also discussed a number of judicial pronouncements i.e in the case of Lalchand Bohra Vs. ITO of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, 219 CTR 571. The decision of ld. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. 330 ITR 298, decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT 103 ITR 344. The decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Aravali Trading Company Vs. ITO - 220 CTR 622. The decision of the Hon’ble High…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), MUMBAI vs. SURINDER ANANTRAM SABHLOK, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

….) (Guj.) x) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 524 (Punjab & Haryana) xi) CIT vs. JaiKumarBakliwal[2014]366ITR217[Rajshthan-HC] xii) CIT vs. Shalimar Buildwell P. L [2014] 220 Taxman 138 [Allahbad-HC] xiii) Labh Chandra Bohra vs. ITO [2014] 219 CTR 571 [Rajasthan-HC] xiv) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) xv) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) xvi) In Gem Palace vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) xvii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) xviii) Rollon Containers vs ITO, Hyderabad [2012] xix) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LALIT KUMAR PODDAR (2015) 56 taxma…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3