Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha v. Asst. CIT

90 TTJ 974Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#21704 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Judgments citing Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha v. Asst. CIT

CH.CHANDRASEKHAR NAIDU ,PRODDATUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 37

…No. 1916 (supra) had thereafter been\nlooked into by the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal, viz., ITAT, Jodhpur\nBench in DCIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani (2006) 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) and\nITAT Jabalpur Bench in case of Smt. Sulochana Devi Jaiswal vs. DCIT\n(2004) 90 TTJ 974 (Jab), wherein it was observed that the jewellery to the\nextent of the prescribed limit contemplated in the CBDT Instruction No. 1916\n(supra) is not to be treated as having been acquired by the assessee out of\nunexplained sources. For the sake of clarity, we herein deem it fit to cull out\nthe extracts of the aforesaid orders (relevant extracts…

SH. MAHENDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that assessee had turnover Rs. 68.89 lakhs on which assessee has declared income at the rate of 8% but section 44AD being not applicable, profit rates of 10% should be applied which comes to Rs.6,88,900/- and since assessee has surrend…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 81/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…tanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that assessee had turnover Rs. 68.89 lakhs on which assessee has declared income at the rate of 8% but section 44AD being not applicable, profit rates of 10% should be applied which comes to Rs.6,88,900/- and since assessee has surren…

MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 6396/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69