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 367,154 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 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 147Section 69Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 292cstatement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)panchnamasection 153c(1)loose paperssection 132(4)dumb documents

Judgments citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Ochhab Lal Jain, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 428/JODH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…it should be read correct and full unless not controverted. 8.1 To support his arguments the Ld. AR for the assessee has also drawn our attention to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein Court has held as that:- " 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 was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. N…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 213. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under:- “In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the ITO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, to dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the same…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 213. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under:- “In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the ITO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, to dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the same…

Leela Dutt Sharma, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 928/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 144Section 69A

…ds collected from sales of business stands credited to P&L A/c and that cash is deposited in the bank account, also when books are not rejected. For the said proposition, the AR relied on the ratio of following decisions : A. Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (30 ITR 181) (SC) (1956) b. CIT v Bhaichand H. Gandhi (141 ITR 67) (Bom. HC) (1983) c. Shri Harish Sharma vs ITO (ITA No. 327/Chd/2020) dtd. 11.05.2021 d. Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (55 CCH 0544) (Del. ITAT) dtd. 12.04.2019 6.11 It was submitted that the cash deposit in bank in question is sourced from sale proceeds of business and collection from debtors…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…was done by the A.O. after submission of such retraction statement and it has been held by the Apex court that ‘Non Cross examination will shut doors for revenue to challenge the Retraction’. (i) Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) where it was held that it will not be open to the revenue to challenge the statements made by the deponent in their affidavits later on, if no cross examination with reference to the statements made in the affidavits is done. "No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entries were called for, nor was the presence of the deponents…

Rajesh Kumar Poonia, Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…was done by the A.O. after submission of such retraction statement and it has been held by the Apex court that ‘Non Cross examination will shut doors for revenue to challenge the Retraction’. (i) Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) where it was held that it will not be open to the revenue to challenge the statements made by the deponent in their affidavits later on, if no cross examination with reference to the statements made in the affidavits is done. "No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entries were called for, nor was the presence of the deponents…

Hinaben Pravinkumar Vithlani, Junagadh vs. ITO, Ward-1, Junagdh, Junagadh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 838/RJT/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiasstt. Year: (2009-10) Hinaben Pravinkumar Vithalani Income Tax Officer, Ward- C/O. Shree Laxmi Finance 1, Junagadh, Aayakar Vs. Shop No.1, Ami Apartment Bhavan, Shakti Chamber, Vanzari Chowk, Junagadh. Junagadh-362 001 Pan : Abppv 4234 P (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH “SMC”, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: (2009-10) Hinaben Pravinkumar Vithalani Income Tax Officer, Ward- C/o. Shree Laxmi Finance 1, Junagadh, Aayakar Vs. Shop No.1, Ami Apartment Bhavan, Shakti Chamber, Vanzari Chowk, Junagadh. Junagadh-362 001 PAN : ABPPV 4234 P (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.AR राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, ld.Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 12/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 29/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per,Dr.…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…gal position that in the cases where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. 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). 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 creditor before…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Mool Ji Diamonds, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvcoateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 188 /Chd/ 2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम The DCIT M/s Mool Ji Diamonds Circle-1(1) SCO-826, NAC, Manimajra Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AALFM9156A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advcoate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR…

Feroze Gani, Aluva vs. ITO, Kochi

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

ITA 194/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Jameskutty Antony, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 144C(13)Section 148

…who actually executed the work of improvement of the said property. Thus, it is submitted that the evidence furnished simply cannot be brushed aside, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 545 (Guj.). 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. I heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue involved in the pre…

Ramesh Ramani, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(5), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2025 िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Prabhakar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…al Nos. 6756 to 6758 (Mum.) of 2008 & 407 (Mum) of 2009 Date of Judgement/Order : August 10, 2012 -Addition to income on the basis of mere presumption not sustainable. It may please be noted that the Apex Court's judgement in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) said "the finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs.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". In all the above cases and in several other cases, the uniform view taken by the judicial…

ACIT CC 6(1), Mumbai vs. Ganadhish Gnp, Mumbai

ITA 4481/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…choose those portions of the statement of Mr Girish Pawar that are favourable to him and ignore the other parts. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment are as under: As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, none of the authorities considered it necessary to crossexamine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, and, hence, under these circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other words, consequently, the assessee was entitled to ass…

M/S Ganadhish Gnp, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle -6(1), Mumbai

ITA 3980/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya Bhandari
Section 132Section 132(4)

…choose those portions of the statement of Mr Girish Pawar that are favourable to him and ignore the other parts. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment are as under: As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, none of the authorities considered it necessary to crossexamine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, and, hence, under these circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other words, consequently, the assessee was entitled to ass…

Ganadhish Gnp, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3966/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Bleita No. 3965/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) Ganadhish Gnp Dcit, Circle-6(1), Mumbai Shop No. 1203, 12Th Floor, Rupa Solitaire, Building No. A-I, Vs Sector-I, Millennium Business Park, Mahape Navi Mumbai- 400710. Pan: Aapfg 1164 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 4481/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2021-22) Dcit, Circle-6(1), Ganadhish Gnp Mumbai Shop No. 1203, 12Th Floor, Rupa Solitaire, Building No. A- Vs I, Sector-I, Millennium Business Park, Mahape Navi Mumbai-400710. Pan: Aapfg 1164 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…choose those portions of the statement of Mr Girish Pawar that are favourable to him and ignore the other parts. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment are as under: As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, none of the authorities considered it necessary to crossexamine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, and, hence, under these circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other words, consequently, the assessee was entitled to ass…

Ganadhish Gnp, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 3965/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Aadnya BhandariFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT/DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…choose those portions of the statement of Mr Girish Pawar that are favourable to him and ignore the other parts. The relevant extracts of the aforesaid judgment are as under: As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, none of the authorities considered it necessary to crossexamine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, and, hence, under these circumstances it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other words, consequently, the assessee was entitled to ass…

Ram Swaroop Balai, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle -7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…e department to disbelieve the contents of an affidavit unless the person who gave the affidavit was put to cross examination and, if put to cross examination, not unless the Assessing Officer has found fault with the same :  Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)  Dilip Kumar Roy v. CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom.) 11 Ram Swaroop vs. DCIT.  Rajshree Synthetics P. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj.)” 7. From the record we found that income of the donor during the year was Rs. 2,49,712/-. She was mother in law of the assessee having sufficient cash in hand as on 31/03/2011. For this effect, the assessee…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” 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, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…aj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CIR 579 (Gujarat)." (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High C…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 119/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…aj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CIR 579 (Gujarat)." (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High C…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…aj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CIR 579 (Gujarat)." (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High C…