Mehul v. Vyas Vs. ITO

Shri Jashandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (3), Bathinda

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

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

…g the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.) and being in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Mumbai in case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), thus are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.l 1,47,660/- made by the A.O under Sec.68 cannot be sustained, and as such is liable to be * vacated. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.l 1,47,660/-made by the A.O under Sec.68 of the Act. 11. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. The ld. D…

Shri Jashandeep Singh Sidhu, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Bathinda

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

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

…g the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.) and being in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Mumbai in case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), thus are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.l 1,47,660/- made by the A.O under Sec.68 cannot be sustained, and as such is liable to be * vacated. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.l 1,47,660/-made by the A.O under Sec.68 of the Act. 11. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. The ld. D…

Harjindar Singh Bal, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 57/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Harjindar Singh Bal Ward- No.29, Hospital Colony, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Adepb7178F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

…14 (Asr), wherein, after drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) and referring to an earlier order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), the tribunal had held as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We will first deal with the objection raised by the ld. A.R as regards the addition of Rs.10,53,000/- which was made by the A.O under Section 68 o…

Smt Smt Dheeraj Devi Kothari, Rajnandgaon vs. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Dheeraj Devi Kothari, Near Prakash Medicos, Balgovind Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G) Pan : Aezpk9549K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

…n'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal viz. ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), wherein following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Bhaichand N. Gandhi (supra) it was observed as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We will first deal with the objection raised P a g e…

Shrimati Meera Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 2, Jalandhar

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

…'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.). Apart from that, we find that a similar view had been arrived at by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal viz. ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum), wherein it was observed as under: "8. We have heard the ld. Authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities as well as the material produced before us. We will first deal with the objection raised P a g e |5 ITA No.105/Asr./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer by the Id. A.…

Sh. Satish Kumar, Jalandhar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Ravish Soodita No.105/Asr./2017 (Assessment Years: 2008-09)

…./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Shri Satish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 143 ITR 67 (Bom.). Apart therefrom, support was drawn from the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Mehul V. Vyas Vs. ITO (2017) 764 ITD 296 (Mum). Further, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) has held that addition in respect of cash credit entry in the books of account of a partnership firm in which the assessee was a partner, cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. On t…