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 367,164 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Ajmer vs. Alok Malpani, Kishangarh

In the result appeals of the revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 334/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 69

…CET (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224 (2001) 252 ITR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros, vs. Asstt. CIT 1995) 51 TTJ (Pune) 513: (1995) 52 ITO 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 470 (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta va, Asstt. CIT (Inv.] (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327: (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune) applied. (vi) Thus, as per provisions of section 292C and 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the contents of such books of account and other documents seized during the course of search are true and the contents of the seized documents are itse…

ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/JPR/2022[ABUPK2500L]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. V/s. CIT 1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under:) Case Law paper Book page 200- 207 “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of ₹ 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Raj Kumar Nowal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 165/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Khejrolia (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)Section 68

…erson acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. V/s. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under:) Case Law paper Book page 200- 207 “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of ₹ 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur vs. Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 236/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Ito-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.09/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Rpr/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Raipur, Dated 17.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,35,21,935/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Without Appreciating The Facts On Record?” 2. “Whether Cit(A) Committed An Error In Law In Not Appreciating The Purport Of Provisions Of Sections 68 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)Section 68

…assessee Ld AR has placed copies of following judgments in its case law compilation paper book. On satisfaction u/s.68 i) CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) ii) Rajshree Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 256 ITR 331 Raj. iii) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 SC iv) CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 SC On discharge of burden u/s 68 v) ITO vs. Smt. Pratima Ashar (2019) 107 taxmann.com 135 MumTrib dt. 06.06.2019 vi) Pawan Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(2), Bilaspur Tax Case No. 24 of2011 Chhattisgarh HC vii) CIT Vs. Abdul Aziz (2012) 82 CCH 248 ChattHC viii) ITO-1, Raigarh Vs. Koushal Agrawal 22 ITJ 233 IT…

Sh. Gulshan Kumar Prop. G.K. Resorts, Ludhiana vs. DCIT Circle-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavsh. Gulshan Kumar बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. G. K. Resorts House No. 3, Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Agar Nagar Extension, Ferospur Ludhiana Road, Ludhiana 1410212, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaqpk1200Q

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 68

…dverse view have been taken by the department. Further, all such submissions which were made earlier were reiterated, along with the affidavits filed by the two sons of the assessee with regard to the gifts and the judgment of Mehta Parikh vs. CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 was relied upon and which have been followed in the case of Glass Lime Equipment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 253 ITR 454 for the proposition that where the affidavits were filed, then no adverse view can be taken and same arguments were repeated. 15. It was submitted that the submission so filed by the assessee however did not fully find favour…

Sanjiv Ramesh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 818/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrikuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalsanjiv Ramesh Kochhar 202, A Wing, Eastern Court, Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan: Aadpk0769K ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-17(3) Room No. 122, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-141 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Govind Javeri Respondent By : Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 26.11.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Sh. Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Sh. Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

…h payment of Credit card purchases amounting Rs. 9,72,500 then in that case the question of treating the same u/s 69C as unexplainedexpenditure, does not arise. We have relied on below case laws, 1. As explained in case law of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC)., it was held that, when assessee submitted books of account showing relevant entries showing payment being made to them which resulted in cash in its books and also submitted affidavits of payers, Revenue authorities cannot hold that it was not possible that all payments after a particular date were being made in multiples of Rs. 1000. No ad…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

…person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] 9) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. V/s. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under:) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 200-207) “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of ₹ 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek L. Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 344/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.344/Srt/2019 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Abhishek L.Jain 2(3)(7), Room No. 414, 4Th Prop Of Manglam Export, Vs Floor, Anavil Business Centre, 302, Pipla Sheri, Adajan-Hajira Road, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003 Pan : Abxpj 0344 G Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…ue. To support his various submission, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following case law:  Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 IDTR 713 (SC)  Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)  Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC)  CIT vs. Odeon Builders Private Limited (Review Petition) (C) Diary No. 22394 of 2019  CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda 406 ITR 220 (Raj) 12 Sh. Abhishek L. Jain  Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT 148 TTJ 719 (Jaipur Trib.)  PCIT Vs Tejua R Kapadia 24 taxmann.com 325 (SC)  PCIT Vs Tejua R. Kapadia [TA No.691/2017 (Guj)  DCIT vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel TA No…

ITO, WD.25(4), Kolkata vs. Pabitra Majumder, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed & C

ITA 53/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata Shri Pabitra Majumder Vs. W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.10/Kol/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 53/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Pabitra Majumder Ito, Ward-25(4), Kolkata W/2, Akra Road, Bartala, Vs. Kolkata – 700 066. [Pan: Axzpm 1249 D] (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -7, Kolkata Dated 24.08.2020 & Consequent To That Another Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 10/Kol/2021. “I. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Was Correct In Upholding The Contention Of The Assessee In Absence To Any Verifiable Material To Warrant The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Mandal, ACIT, DR

Section 69A

…t applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The decision which more aptly applies to the present facts would be the apex court decision of Mehta Parikh & Co vs. CIT 5 ITA No.53/KOL/2022 & C.O. No. 10/Kol/2021 Shri Pabitra Majumder A.Y. 2017-18 reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC) again dealing with case of en-cashing the high denominations during the 1946 Demonetization Ordinance. The addition made by AO was reduced by the Tribunal thereby accepting in part the explanation provided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that assessee had furnished a reasonable explanation and the Tribunal accepting in part and disallowing in…

Shri Madan Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 873/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 54BSection 68

…tled that in the cases where affidavits have been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Parikh & co. v/s ITO (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) followed by Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches of ITAT also in the cases of ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (JP) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD). However, in this case the averments made in the affidavits so filed, completely remained unrebutted and therefore, the AO and CIT(A) were bound by them. 5.Decision cited by depar…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. P Shivmohan Reddy, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…vered in the course of the raid were all questions of fact, and no question of law arose out of the order of the Decision of Appellate Tribunal”. 15. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT reported in 30 ITR 181, he drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: “It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants w…

Shri Naresh Jhanwar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 260/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

…(2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224: (2001) 252 ITR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros. vs. Asstt. CIT (2995) 51 MI (Pune) 513: (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 470 : (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj), Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. C1T (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (Inv.) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327: (1999) 71. ITD 245 (Pune) applied. First thing the AO has to prove is that it is the investment of the assessee. In other words, the ownership of the investment must be proved to be that of the assessee. The onus is on the Department to prove it before actually deeming th…

Shri Naresh Jhanwar, Jaipur vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 259/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

Surendra Nath Singh, Ghazipur vs. ITO, Ward - 3(5), Ghazipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 60/VNS/2018[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi25 Jul 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Surendra Nath Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Mahuabagh, Ward-3(5), Ghazipur Ghazipur-233001 Pan-Bphps5975K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, Ca Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, CAFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Surendra Nath Singh, v. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Mahuabagh, Ward-3(5), Ghazipur Ghazipur-233001 PAN-BPHPS5975K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, CA Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 25.07.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2018 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised…

Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrad -4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Milind Bhusare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, नागपुर न्यायपीठ, नागपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.207/NAG/2018 Assessment Year. : 2010-2011) Vs ITO, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Ramkrushna Zilbaji Thakre, 104, Gurudeo Nagar, Nandanwan Road, Nagpur-440009 PAN No. : AHRPT 6797 M (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Dr. Milind Bhusare, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15/07/2022 आद…

Rohit Gupta, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18 Rohit Gupta, V. The Dy. Cit, Flat No.B-2, Shree Dham Central Circle Ii Apartment, 113/93, Swaroop Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur - 208002 Tan/Pan:Ahlpg1735E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 07 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopra, CIT (DR)

Section 148Section 151Section 153D

…under coercion. In the absence of any adverse finding brought on record by the ld. A.O., this affidavit ought to have been accepted on its face value in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181. c. The JCIT also failed to appreciate that in clause 6 of the Panchnama, it is clearly stated that the authorized official, Shri G.S. Saxena, DCIT, recorded the statement of Shri. Navin Jain and Shri. Naresh Kumar Jain on oath under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, however, the alleged purported statement recorded under section 132(4)…

M/S. Exim India Oil Company Ltd, Cuttack vs. DCIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 70/CTK/2008[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jun 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 1998-99 M/S. Exim India Oil Company M/S. Exim India Oil Company Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaace 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K. Tiberwal Tiberwal, Md Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/6/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 8 /6 6/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.K. TiberwalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 1998-99 M/s. Exim India Oil Company M/s. Exim India Oil Company Vs. DCIT, Circle DCIT, Circle-1(1), Ltd., At:N.H-5, Tiberwal Nagar, 5, Tiberwal Nagar, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack Jagatpur, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAACE 3929 K (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ITA No.155/Bang/2022 M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust For Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: NA M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) No.1, Tamaka Vs. Principal CIT (Central) Kolar 563 103 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATS5344P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f the loan creditors confirming the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld. Assessing Officer has just ignored such affidavits, once the transactions are confirmed under affidavit, same cannot be disregarded. 4.5.1 In the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT — 30 ITR 181 (SC), ….. 4.5.2 High Court of Bombay in the case of Dilipkumar Roy s. CIT 94 ITR 1 (Mumbai). ….. 4.6 The Ld. Assessing Officer has just relied upon the statement of Shri Pravin Jain U/s.132(4) without providing a copy of the statement and even not evaluating the statement and its retraction during assessment proceeding. No cross examination is all…

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68