How many judgments cite ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO?

17 judgments on BharatTax cite ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO (160 ITD 605), spanning 2018 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(1).

ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO

160 ITD 605Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#6548 most cited

What is ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO authority for?

An addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be made solely on the basis of entries in a bank pass book or bank statement if the assessee does not maintain books of account. A bank pass book is not considered a book maintained by the assessee for the purpose of Section 68.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Manasi Mahendra Pitkar v. ITO · Section 68 · cash credit · bank pass book · unexplained cash credit · addition u/s 68 · not a book maintained by assessee · assessment procedure · ITAT · 2016

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 unexplained cash credit section 68 previous year total income person business document

Judgments citing ManasiMahendraPitkar v. ITO

Dinesh Kumar Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 863/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 Shri Dinesh Kumar Soni cuke The DCIT, House No. 89, Govind Nagar Vs. Central Circle-1, Jaipur. West, Amer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS2969J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.…

Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3087/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta SamantaraFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 68

…sessee or under his instructions. In our view, the Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.” 8. Similar view was taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai), Smt Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai), Asha Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. I.T.A. No. 3087/Mum/2024 Shri Gurtejpal Singh Somal 4 99/RPR/22 and Jaipur Bench decision in the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 13/JP/2020. 9. It would be pertinent to refer to SOP issued by CBDT vide order dated 10.01.2018 for applying the provision of Section 68 of the Act and in the…

Mahesh Subhash Shukla, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3919/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Kirit ShethFor Respondent: Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 68

…e Tribunal was justified in the conclusions at which it arrived.” I.T.A. No. 3919/Mum/2024 Mahesh Subhash Shukla 4 9. Similar view was taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO 164 ITD 296 (Mumbai), Smt Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai), Asha Soni Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 99/RPR/22 and Jaipur Bench decision in the case of Dr. Vishan Swaroop Gupta Vs. ITO in ITA No. 13/JP/2020. 10. It would be pertinent to refer to SOP issued by CBDT vide order dated 10.01.2018 for applying the provision of Section 68 of the Act and in the background note appended to the said SOP at point 1.1…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…544 (Gauhati High Court)  ITO v. Kamal Kumar Mishra (2013) 143 ITD 0686 (Lucknow Tribunal)  Babbal Bhatia v. ITO (2018) (Delhi ITAT)  Baladin Ram v. CIT (1969) 71 ITR 427 (SC)  CIT v. Ms Mayavati 338 ITR 563 (Delhi High Court)  Smt Mansi Mahendra Pitkar 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai Trib)  Smt Madhu Raitani 10 ITR(T) 91 (Gauhati) (TM) Page No. | 9 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO vi) Without prejudice to above, the facts of the given case are well covered by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jaya Aggrawal v. ITO (2018) 92 Taxmann 108 where it is held by the Hon High Court that "Explanation given by assessee…

Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…ssee’s books-Cash credit found only in band pass book and not in the cash book maintained by assessee- Would not be includible under s. 68 as pass book supplied by bank to assessee is not a book maintained by assessee ii) ManasiMahendraPitkar v/s ITO, [2016] 160 ITD 605 (Mum. Trib.); Factually speaking, in the present case assesseeis not maintaining any books of account and section 68 of the Act has been invoked by the Assessing officer only on the basis of the bank pass book. The invoking of section 68 of the Act has to fail because as per 27 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur the ju…

Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani, Chhindwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 153/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…ssee’s books-Cash credit found only in band pass book and not in the cash book maintained by assessee- Would not be includible under s. 68 as pass book supplied by bank to assessee is not a book maintained by assessee ii) ManasiMahendraPitkar v/s ITO, [2016] 160 ITD 605 (Mum. Trib.); Factually speaking, in the present case assesseeis not maintaining any books of account and section 68 of the Act has been invoked by the Assessing officer only on the basis of the bank pass book. The invoking of section 68 of the Act has to fail because as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ShriBhaicha…

Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chavan, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1061/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.N. RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143Section 24Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1061/Mum./2017 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Santosh Dnyaneshwar Chavan F–3/6, Sector–10, Vashi ……………. Appellant Navi Mumbai 400 405 PAN – ACXPC6755D v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–22(3)(4), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri B.N. Rao Revenue by : Shri Hoshang B. Irani Date of Hearing – 07.03.2022 Date of Order – 18.05.2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned o…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1105/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 Smt.Kempanna Shylaja The Income Tax Officer No.617, Neeru Bhavikempanna Ward 6(3)(1) v. Layout, Guddadahalli Main Road Bengaluru. Hebbal Bengaluru – 560 024. PAN : DGVPS6700R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri L.Maheshkumar, Advocate Respondent by :Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2021 Date of Hearing : 06.07.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is dir…

Dineshkumar Verma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma

Section 44ASection 68

…s not constitute books of account. To support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) (2) Madhu Raitani vs. ACIT, 10 taxmann.com 206 (Guwahati)(TM) (3) Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs. ITO 160 ITD 605 (Mumbai – Trib.) (4) Kokarre Prabhakara vs. ITO, ITA 1239/Bang/2019 DoD 11/09/2020 2.2. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee asserted that although the provisions of section 68 does not apply where the return has been filed on presumptive basis under section 44AD of the Act, where the assessee is not maintaining books of account, no…

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…6) 2. Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani SMC Pune Bench (Before Ms. Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) Para 13 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A Bench ITA 7097/Mum/2013 (23.03.2018)Para 7 & Para 8 (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) Para 4 to 7 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) Para 5 10 6. Om Prakash Delhi E Bench in ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) Para 5 to 8 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT 143 ITD 686 Para 7 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT SMC Bench in ITA 2414/D…

Manish Agarwal HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 30(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7443/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Nitin Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Kailash Prasad Agarwal Vs. Ito, Ward 29(2), (Huf) New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaahk2932D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Manish Agarwal (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aafhn4178R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aheer Abdulhamid Mulani SMC Pune Bench (Before Ms. Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) Para 13 3. Latif Ebrahim Patel Mumbai A Bench ITA 7097/Mum/2013 (23.03.2018)Para 7 & Para 8 (Mumbai ITAT decisions in 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Singh Gill Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) Para 4 to 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC Bench in ITA 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) Para 5 6. Om Prakash Delhi E Bench in ITA 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) Para 5 to 8 7. Kamal Kumar Mishra Lucknow ITAT 143 ITD 686 Para 7 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT SMC Bench in ITA 241…

Kailash Prasad Agarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7310/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Nitin Agarwal (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands

ITA 7309/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Inder Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1931/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantay: 2010-11 Inder Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 43(3), S/O Sh. Ram Singh, New Delhi 94, Goyala Khurd, Delhi (Pan: Bcrps3678G) Bhhpk5632D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. B.S. Rajpurohit, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68Section 80C

…) 2. Zaheer SMC Pune Bench (Before Ms. Para 13 Abdulhamid Sushma Chowla and Shri Anil Mulani Chaturvedi) ITA 862/Pun/2017 (31.08.2018) 3. Latif Ebrahim Mumbai A Bench ITA Para 7 & Para Patel 7097/Mum/2013 8 (Mumbai (23.03.2018) ITAT decisions in 164 ITD 296 & 160 ITD 605 followed) 4. Shamsher Delhi SMC Bench in ITA Para 4 to 7 Singh Gill 2987/Del/2015 (28/02/2017) 5. Danveer Singh Delhi SMC Bench in ITA Para 5 7 4036/Del/2017 (14/12/2017) 6. Om Prakash Delhi E Bench in ITA Para 5 to 8 1325/Del/2011 (11/08/2016) 7. Kamal Kumar Lucknow ITAT 143 ITD 686 Para 7 Mishra 8. Sunil Vaid Delhi ITAT SMC Bench in ITA Para 7…

Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall, Delhi vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2483/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall Vs. Ito C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward-2 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Faridabad. Delhi. Bhhpk5632D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 68

…ITA No. 2483/Del/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Prop. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2011-12 Vijay Kumar Prop. V.K. Medical Hall vs. ITO C/o Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward-2 F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Faridabad. Delhi. BHHPK5632D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06/11/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 27/11/2018 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been preferred by assessee against or…

Jai Naraindas Kalani, Ulhasnagar vs. ITO WD 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Ms. Aarju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed an opportunity to cross-examine such persons. It is also pointed out that Sec. 68 of the Act could not have been invoked by the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar, [2016] 160 ITD 605. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue pointed out that the witnesses examined by the Assessing Officer were indeed produced by the assessee and they were assessee’s witnesses and there was no justification for the assessee to insist on their cross-examination. 8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the in…

Latif Ebrahim Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7097/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Latif Ebrahim Patel Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1) बिधम/ 202, 3, Sarkar Tower, Mumbai Mazagaon, Vs. Mumbai-400010 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Agqpp1237N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…inate bench of the Tribunal, viz. ITAT, Mumbai bench „B‟ in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. I.T.O 23(2)(3), Mumbai (2017) 164 ITD 296 (Mum) and the order of a “SMC” bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Smt. Mansi Mahindra Pitkar Vs. I.T.O 1(2), Thane (2016) 160 ITD 605 (Mum) to support her contention that the cash deposits in the bank account cannot be construed as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Sec. 68 in a case where the assessee is not maintaining any books of account, is found to be well placed and squarely covers the issue under consideration before us. We further find that a similar view…