How many judgments cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT?

396 judgments on BharatTax cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (30 ITR 181), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 69A, Section 147.

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

30 ITR 181Supreme Court of India1956#185 most cited

What is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT · 30 ITR 181 · affidavit not rebutted · binding on AO · facts in affidavit · tax authorities bound by affidavit · statement in affidavit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 69A Section 147 Section 69 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statement section 158bb section 131(1a)section 292c statement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)panchnama section 153c(1)loose papers section 132(4)dumb documents

Judgments citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Chhavi Bansal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2609/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2609/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Chhavi Bansal, Ito, 70/N, Raghubir Nagar Colony, Vs. Ward-1(2), Ballabhgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad. Ballabgarh, Haryana. Pan No. Ajlpb8288R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 250Section 271A

…, there was reasonable and sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. The Applicant furnished duly sworn affidavit along with application for I.T.A.No.2609/Del/2023 condonation of delay. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs CIT [30 ITR 181] that averments of duly sworn in affidavit are to be accepted as correct unless the same are rebutted by evidence. 3. On hearing both the parties and perusing the orders of the authorities below and the submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee it is observed that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay observing th…

DCIT, CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hetal N. Shah (Leagal Heir of the Assessee Shri Nitin Rajmal Shah), Mumbai

In the result, we admit the appeal of the AO as it has been replaced by bringing the legal heir of deceased assessee on record but dismissed the appeal on the merits of the addition

ITA 1080/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hetal Nitin Shah Dcit Legal Heir Of Nitin Rajmal Central Circle 5(1) Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Shah Air India Building, 301, Chandramani, Vs. Nariman Point, Hanuman Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadps5476M Assessee By : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…ng officer should have examined those persons and Nitin Rajmal Shah; A.Y. 2012-13 given an opportunity to the assessee of cross- examination. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & co VS CIT 30 ITR 181 and of the coordinate bench in ITA number 5783/M/2017. The learned authorized representative further relied on the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in case of 191 taxman 51 (Delhi) (322 ITR 396) wherein it has been held that wherein it has been held that when there is a violation of the principles of natural justice as the statements re…

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…produced by the assesse during the course of assessment proceedings in support of his contention, therefore averments contained in duly sworn affidavit are to be accepted as correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC) ,, ITO v. Dr.TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp)Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s LunardDimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the cred…

The DCIT Central-3, Indore vs. M/S Hanuman Proessor, Burhanpur

ITA 169/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Cit, M/S.Hanuman Processors, Central-3, Alamganj, बनाम/ Indore. Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaafh7777 F

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर"ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. CIT, M/s.Hanuman Processors, Central-3, Alamganj, बनाम/ Indore. Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AAAFH7777 F C.O.No.7/Ind/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 169/Ind/2023) Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s.Hanuman Processors, Dy. CIT, Alamganj, Central-3, बनाम/ Burhanpur Indore. Vs. (CrossObjector/ Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri P.D.…

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ena 22,95,000 In support of the above advances so received the assessee furnished affidavit to the ld. AO. The content of the affidavit has not been controverted. Thus, based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 if the content of the affidavit is not challenged then addition ignoring the content of the affidavit cannot be made. The Ld. AO has already accepted that the assessee has deposited cash on various dates of the currency in pieces and since that the assessee already explained the source of cash on hand to the extent of Rs. 16,18,000/- in the bank a…

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-5, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2807/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Years : 2015-16] Telmos Electronics, Vs Ito, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Ward-5, Haryana-125005. Hisar. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2010-11] Telmos Electronics, Vs Jcit, Jindal Chowk, Model Town, Hisar, Hisar. Haryana-125005. Pan-Aacft1673L Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : Both Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A), Hisar Both Dated 31.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2010-11. The Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Hearing & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Brevity & Convenience.

Section 40A(3)Section 68

…r proving the identity of the payee firm were duly furnished along with an affidavit of Sh. Ravi Gupta (Partner firm)narrating the facts, in support of the contentions. Paper Book Page No.37, 37(i), 38, 40 & 41 On Affidavit: Mehta Parekh & Coy vs. CIT: (1956) 30 ITR 181 SC; HELD: If ITO fails to cross examine the deponent, the Affidavit becomes unchallengeable, accordingly any notional addition of Rs.171495/- u/s 40A (3) is quite unsustainable and liable to be quashed on all force. In short at substance the payments were made keeping in view the business expediency & its overall profitability and was made by the…

Telmos Electronics, Haryana vs. JCIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2655/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Section 40A(3)Section 68

Vipul M Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO -17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipul M Shah (Huf) Vs. The Ito 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabhv3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Vimal Punamiya Respondent By : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Gotimukul Santosh Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…P a g e | 1 Vipul M Shah (HUF) Vs. ITO 17(3)(5) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vipul M Shah (HUF) Vs. The ITO 17(3)(5) 404, Commerce House, Mumbai 140, N.M. Road, Fort, Maharashtra – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AABHV3153Q Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Vimal Punamiya Respondent by : Gotimukul Santosh Kumar Date of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by t…

Narayani Bai Dangi, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 42/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 250Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Narayani Bai Dangi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 407, Near Akhand Ashram Ward-2(1), Shoubhagpura Udaipur. Udaipur. [PAN:BREPD4963P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT DR 11.10.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi {in brevity th…

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…1 AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS (P) LTD VS ACIT, KOTA आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A ” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 433/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2017-18 M/s. Ahluwalia Erectors &Fabricatrs (P) Ltd. cuke The ACIT Vs. Kota E-77, IPIA, Kota- 324 005 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAHCA 0089 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri M…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…what further inquiries could and should have been made in the admitted facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. Normally, in absence of any contrary material the averments made in the affidavits should be accepted. Ref: Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). In this case no such material is referred even by the CIT. 7. A pertinent fact having a direct bearing cannot be lost sight off / ignored that a survey was carried out during the course of which some papers were impounded and that the AO made detailed inquiries seeking clarifications on each aspect, duly submitted by the assessee. Thus, ther…

Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…peals and the same are accordingly dismissed. — CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138: (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker): 42R.1622, affirmed.” 7. Contents of affidavits filed remained uncontroverted hence were binding upon AO as held in Mehta Pareek & co. (30 ITR 181 SC). Onus shifted to AO was not discharged and he proceeded on mere suspicion which is not a good basis as held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 SC). 8.No application of mind by the CIT(A): A bare look upon the order of the CIT(A) makes it clear that there has been no application of mind at all by him on the facts, the submissions made by t…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…be sustained because explanation is not supported by any evidence and merely affidavit is placed on record will not suffice to delete the addition so made by the ld. AO. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Parikh reported at 30 ITR 181 (SC) the affidavit submitted by the employer of the assessee and contention of the assessee cannot be brushed aside. Alternatively, looking to the fact that the money is deposited and withdrawal were made based on these non controverted facts the contention of the ld. AR of the assessee that if the explanation is not considered in full then the on…

Sh. Sunil Dutt Jain, Prop. M/S Jain Food Products, 266/33, Diggi Chowk, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 153ASection 250Section 50CSection 69A

…r affirmed that in Financial Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 also he received Rs.38,63,000/- on sale of some shops for which documents were found in search. This affidavit is not discredited by the AO. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 at Page 187 has held that the rejection of affidavit filed by the assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Kuldeep Chand Garg vs. ITO, 37 Tax World 127 h…

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

…e within the time prescribed by law. The Revenue has not been able to discharge its onus either before the Tribunal or before us. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law arises and the appeal is dismissed.” (PB 157) Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) (PB) 14 SHRI CHAND MOHAMMAD VS ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER In the present case the affidavit has not been found to be false and the assessee has also confirmed the facts in its statement and even further the assessee was ready for cross examination but no efforts were made by the ld. AO to call shri Ganesh Goyal to make statement Therefore, in the…

Aman Exports International, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…so because the rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross-examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. [Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Sri Krishna v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 618 (All), Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 {Bom.). CIT vs. Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (198) 230 ITR 580 (SC). The affidavits filed cannot be rejected outright without cross examination A finding given by the appellate Tribunal without considering the affidavit concerning a material evidence may not be susta…

Manasi Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…ry and accordingly since the impugned cash sales were already offered to tax, the realization amount which was kept in the locker cannot be brought to tax in the guise of section 69A 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC)has held that, if the accounts of assessee had been accepted as genuine then it was impossible to say that high denomination notes could not be included in the cash balance. Similarly, in the present case, when the Ld. Assessing Officer has accepted the amount of sales as disclosed in the Return of Income. Thus, he cannot say that the proceeds…

Raghupathy Srivatsa Ravikumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward -1 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 991/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 991/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raghupathy Srivatsa Income Tax Officer, Ravikumar, V. Non Corporate Ward 1(3), C/O. J. Prabhakar, Chennai. Chartered Accountant, No. 245, Residency Apartments, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aizpr-6860-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. J. Prabhakar, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 50Section 55

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी (एस एम सी)’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C (SMC)’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 991/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Raghupathy Srivatsa Income Tax Officer, Ravikumar, v. Non Corporate Ward 1(3), C/o. J. Prabhakar, Chennai. Chartered Accountant, No. 245, Residency Apartments, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. [PAN: AIZPR-6860-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. J. Prabhakar, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent…

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 48/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 47 & 48/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-2009 Onkar Singh S/o Sh. Atma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Singh, Near Telephone Ward- 3, Hoshiarpur. Exhange, VPO Sham Chaurasi, Distt. Hoshiarpur. [PAN:-DXCPS2061F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Y. K. Sud, CA Respondent by Sh. Mohit Kumar Nigam, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed aga…

Shri Onkar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee ITA No

ITA 47/ASR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68