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 367,154 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 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

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

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

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 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Thru” V.H.)

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 69A

…Raj.), Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbal 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 Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh). Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat)" (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High…

Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 132/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gaurav Goel, Vs. The Ito, बनाम H. No. 1676, Sector 33-D, Ward 4(3), Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahgpg3162Q अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Jaspal Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

…accounts could not be bye passed merely on the whims and fancies of the authorities.” 132-chd-2024 Gaurav Goel, Chandigarh 22 11.3 Further, reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein it was held as under: “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. The…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…sment Years: 2014-15- & 2017-18- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Jodhpur Bench Miscellaneous 13. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. It has to be noted, however, that beyond these 87-93 Commissioner of Income-tax calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) CIVIL by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT APPEAL NO. 81 OF 1954 Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was MAY 10, 1956 accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entri…

Karshanbhai Ranabhai Goraniya, Aavadpan vs. Income Tax Officer, Porbandar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly, in above terms

ITA 444/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.444 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) Karshanbhai Ranabhai Goraniya Ito, Porbandar C/O. Aavadpan Nileshbhai, Lirbai Vs. Gujarat – 360550 Para Aayarvadi Nava Vistar Ranavav, Gujarat – 360550 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bbppg3373K (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…which were duly supported with the documentary evidences. The assessee also submitted the Affidavit stating all the facts and for that ld. Counsel for the assessee, relied on the judgement of Hon`ble Supreme Court, in case of Mehta Parikh 7 Co. V. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181(SC), wherein it was held that "when there is no material on record to disprove the veracity of a statement made in affidavit, a finding arrived at ignoring the statement in the affidavit would be finding based on no evidence and a finding which no person acting judicially Karshanbhai Ranabhai Goraniya v. ITO AY. 2013-14 could have arrived at. "…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 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. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s Lunard Dimond 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 cr…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…reliance on the following judgments:  Rajshree Syntheticss Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (256 ITR 331, 335 Rajasthan)  Hindusthan Tea Trading Com. Ltd. Vs. CIT (263 ITR 289,293 Calcutta)  CIT Vs P Mohankala & Others (291 ITR 0278 SC)  M/s Mehtra Parikh & Co Vs. CIT (30 ITR 181, 189 SC) 12. On the issue of cross examination not allowed to the assessee, whereas the additions are made based on 3rd party statements or information surfaced during the Search action on a 3rd party, Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments: 24 DCIT, Bilaspur Vs. M/s Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd.  PCIT Vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. (143 ta…

Sankalp in, Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result Revenue’s Ground Nos

ITA 577/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 69C

…20 Page No 13 ACIT Vs. Sankalp IN interpreting seized material and reliance is placed on following decisions: * Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT – (2002) 252 ITR 417 (Guj); * Glass Line Equipments Co. vs CIT – 253 ITR 454 (Guj); * Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT – (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); * Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT – (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune); * Chander Mohan Mehta v ACIT – (1999) ITD 245 (Pune); * Biren V. Savla vs. ACIT – (2006) 155 Taxman 270 (Mum); * Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd); * DCIT v Kankakia Hospitality P Ltd. – (2019) 179 ITD 1 (Mum); 6.5. In view of the above, it is clear that Ld CIT(A)…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Sankalp in, Ahmedabad

In the result Revenue's Ground Nos

ITA 568/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd\nShri NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 69C

…se theory cannot be adopted while interpreting seized material and reliance is placed on following decisions: * Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT – (2002) 252 ITR 417 (Guj); * Glass Line Equipments Co. vs CIT – 253 ITR 454 (Guj); * Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT – (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); * Kantilal & Bros. vs. ACIT – (1995) 52 ITD 412 (Pune); * Chander Mohan Mehta v ACIT – (1999) ITD 245 (Pune); * Biren V. Savla vs. ACIT – (2006) 155 Taxman 270 (Mum); * Madhav Corpn. vs ACIT– (2017) 85 taxmann.com 238 (Ahd); * DCIT v Kankakia Hospitality P Ltd. – (2019) 179 ITD 1 (Mum); 6. 5. In view of the above, it is clear that Ld CIT(A)…

Nitesh Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69B

…roceeding before ld. AO or before the ld. CIT(A) or while arguing the case before us. Ld. DR did not challenge the claim of assessee supported by affidavit so placed on record. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [ 30 ITR 181 (SC) ] wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that the affidavits and the entries as made in the account books not having been controverted, the department could not challenge its nature. Thus, in light of this fact declared by the assessee in an affidavit which had not been disputed the addition cannot be sustained. Hence, we direct the ld. AO to de…

Shrikant Singhania, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2017-18 and AY 2019-20

ITA 1221/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…controverted the contents of the affidavit and the contents of the affidavit were not proved as vague, therefore, the affidavit should be accepted as correct. He relied upon following decisions:- Shrikant Singhania vs. ACIT (i) Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT [1958] 30 ITR 181 (SC) (ii) Daulat Ram Rawatmull v. CIT (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC). (iii) Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia V/s DCIT (Vice-Versa) 2019 (6) TMI 467 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No 124-126/JP/2019 order dated 03-06-2019 (iv) Hon’ble Jaipur ITAT in the case of Shri Radhey Shyam Mittal ITA No 420/JP/2012 dated 26.08.2013 (v) Dilip Kumar Rao Vs CIT (1974) 94 ITR 1 (Bom); (vi) M…

M/S Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.53/Nag./2020 (Assessment Year : 2015–16) Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd. 1, Sarvodaya Cloth Market ……………. Appellant Gandhibag, Nagpur 440 002 PAN – AABCS9226J v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–1(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 17/12/2024 Date of Order – 30/12/2024 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, J.M. Captioned appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated…

The Abhinandan Co-Operative Group Housing Society Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward-4(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1850/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarthe Abhinandan Co- Vs. Income Tax Office Operative Group Housing Ward – 4(4) Society Limited Gurgaon Plot No.Gh-8, Sector – 51, Gurgaon, Haryana – 18 Pan : Aabat 5987 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. & Shri Mahfuzur Rehman, C.A. Respondent By Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing 09.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.12.2024 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm:

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…case, Ld. CIT(A) has not accepted part of the contents of the affidavit without cross examining Sh. Ashish Doon and hence rejection of explanation of part of the amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- is not tenable in law. Reference: to Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT [1966] 30 ITR 181(SC) is important in above context. Considering the totality of facts and surrounding circumstances, it is abundantly clear that Sh. Ashish Doon had contributed Rs. 36,64,000/- in cash to the society towards cost of his flat during FY 2010-11. Conveyance Deed has also been registered in favour of Sh. Ashish Doon for the flat by the society clearly…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru vs. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…r Soni* [2008] 166 Taxman 371/[2007] 291 ITR 172 (Raj.); *Kailahben Manharlal Chokshi* v. *CIT* [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.); *CIT* v. *Omprakash K. Jain* [2009] 178 Taxman 179/[2010] 322 ITR 362 (Bom.); *Mehta Parikh & Co.* v. *CIT* [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); *Shree Ganesh Trading Co.* v. *CIT* [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170/214 Taxman 262/257 CTR 159 (Jhar.); *CIT* v. *Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd.* [2015] 55 taxmann.com 176/230 Taxman 187 (A.P.) *Chetnaben J. Shah* v. *ITO* [2017] 79 taxmann.com 328/[2016] 288 CTR 579 (Guj.) - **10.** We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions…

Sadhana Ashok Bhandari, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Pune

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1615/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sadhana Ashok Bhandari, V The Income Tax Officer, Queenies Duplex, Vidyasagar S Ward-5(1), Pune. Colonym, Salisbury Park, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Agmpb0289Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rishabh Patni – Ca/Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade - Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017- 18 Dated 14.06.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act, It Be Held That The Ld.Ao Framed The Assessment Order Without Issuing Show Cause Notice To The Appellant Is Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & Not In Accordance With The Provisions Of Law. The Assessment So Framed Shall Be Treated As Null & Void. Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

Section 250Section 69A

…In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that once Assessing Officer accepted the cash book, there is no reason for AO to make an addition of Rs.6,79,000/-. 2.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Mehta Parikh & Co Vs. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 dated 10.05.1956 has observed as under : 5 “This being the position, the state of affairs, as it obtained on 12th January 1946, had got to be appreciated, having, regard to those entries in the cash books and the affidavits filed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, taking them at their face value. The entries in the cash books disclosed…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Rangaswamy Bhaskaran, Kodungaiyur

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1353/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 132

…t is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit , the no effort is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit , the no effort is made to controvert the contents of the affidavit , the same has to be accepted as true Mehta Parikh & Co. v.CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 has to be accepted as true Mehta Parikh & Co. v.CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 has to be accepted as true Mehta Parikh & Co. v.CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC). There is nothing unusual that the three ladies who belonged to a (SC). There is nothing unusual that the three ladies who belonged to a (SC). There is nothing unusual that the three ladies who belonged t…

Babu Lal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…1 ITA No. 179 & 178/JP/2024 Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Jaipur. आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 179 & 178/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2012-13. cuke Babu Lal Sharma, Dy. Commissioner of Vs. 305, Kanak Vihar, Dhavas Walon Ki Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Dhani, Amba Bari, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADVPL 02…

Pradeep Kumar, Lucknow vs. ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 198/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

…d. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 208. 7. Shobha Devi Dilipkumar vs. ITO [2024] 160 taxmann.com 1249. 8. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.352/DEL/2021 [ITAT, Delhi Bench]. 9. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, 371 ITR 288 (SC). 10. Mehta Parikh Co. vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC). 11. CIT vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. [1996] 84 taxmann 146. 12. CIT vs. Chandra Surana, ITA No.166/JP/2022 [ITAT Jaipur Bench]. 13. Balvinder Kumar vs. ITO, ITA No.256/Amr/2022 [ITAT Amritsar Bench]. 14. JKG Exports vs. ACIT, 161 taxmann.com 481. 15. Prashant Pitti vs. ACIT, ITA No.3032/DEL/2022 [ITAT Delhi Bench]. 16. Smt. Sarika Jain…

Asg Capital Service Pvt Ltd(Now Known As M/S. Asg Capital Service LLP, Having PAN No. Abcfa2143B), Matunga S.O vs. ITO Circle-6(2)(1) Mumabi, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos 2536, 2537 &

ITA 2542/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjeeand Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.2536/Mum/2023 - 2014-15 I.T.A No.2537/Mum/2023 - 2013-14 I.T.A No.2538/Mum/2023 - 2010-11 I.T.A No.2542/Mum/2023 - 2014-15 M/s ASG Capital Service vs ITO, Circle-6(1)(3), Mumbai Pvt.Ltd (Nowknown as M/s ASG Capital Service LLP), 1601, Rasik Villa, 54, Vinay Oza Marg, Matunga Central Matunga S.O., Mumbai-400 019 PAN : AAFCA0896E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR. DR) Date of hearing :…