Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT

20 ITR 8High Court1951#11245 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36 Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 44a section 254(1)addition under section 68 section 115bb section 44ab section 115b addition u/s 68 limited scrutiny section 115bbe section 254 section 44 unexplained money

Judgments citing Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Jaluidanga Paschim Nasaratpur Samaby Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Bardhaman, West Bengal vs. Income Tax Oppficer, Ward-1(3), Burdwan

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2558/KOL/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Jaluidanga Paschim Vs ITO, Ward-1(3), Burdwan Nasaratpur Sambay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Vill : Jaluidanga, Post: Samudragarh, Dist: Purba Bardhaman-7135519 PAN No. :AABAJ 6381 R (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :…

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Limited, Kolkata vs. ADIT, Int. Tax., Kolkata

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

ITA 2558/KOL/2002[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bonnie Debbarma, Sr. DR

Section 36Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 27/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicialmember Acit, Circle 22(2), Vs. Samvardhan Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi 2366, Satya Chambers, Rajguru Road, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055 (Pan: Aalcs8254L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajkumar, Ca Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sujit Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date Of Order : 16.10.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…97 ITR 258 (Pat.)(HC); (vi) Lakhmichand Baijnath vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC); (vii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All.)(HC); 14 Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.)(HC); (ix) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat.)(HC); (x) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 12. With regard to disallowance of salary expenses, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee has submitted before the ld. CIT (A) that Satya Prakash Sharma is the key employee and backbone of the business and has been getting high salary in previous years which duly ac…

Krishna Hiren Gujarati, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, WD. 3(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Krishna Hiren Gujarati, I.T.O., C-24, Krishna Park Society, Opp. Ward-3(2)(4), Vs. Bhagat Nagar, Ved Gurukul Road, Surat. Surat-4 (Gujarat) Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

…a G. Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (pat) (6) R.S. Diamond (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum Trib) On the wrong invocation/application of Section 115BBE of the Act, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions: (7) J.K. Choksi Vs ACIT Tax Appeal No. 149 of 2003 (Guj) (8) Green Associates Vs PCIT Tax Appeal No. 1199 of 2018 (Guj) (9) DCIT Vs Radhe Develop…

Shri Mohd Manzoor, Rajouri vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2 (3), Jammu

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

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.166/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mohd. Manzoor, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Tehsil Kotranka, Village Jammu. Budhal Distt. Rajouri 185133, Jammu & Kashmir. [PAN: BKKPM9572Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CA & Sh. V.S. Aggarwal, ITP. Respondent by Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the or…

Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

In the result, grounds No

ITA 245/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor, I.T.O., 1 Thakor Niwas, Zanda Chowk, Ward-1, Vs. Tarasadi Road, Kosamba, Bardoli. Surat-394120. Pan No. Aabpt 1270 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 254(1)Section 68

…ra G Goradia Vs CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom) (2) Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat) (3) Gur Prasad Hari Das Vs CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All) (4) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) (5) Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh Vs CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) (6) CIT Vs Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (7) S.R. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1980) 48 CCH 0619 (Kar) (8) Vinatha Madhusudan Reddy Vs ACIT (2018) 54 CCH 0151 (Mum Trib) (9) R.S. Diamonds India (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum-Trib) 8 Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor Vs ITO (10) ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charia & Ors. 121 TTJ 366 (Del-Trib) (11) O…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…gap is more than twelve months and in the other cases the gap is only for a few months if not for a few days. xii) Obviously, there can be no hard and fast rule as to much lapse of time is acceptable, In the case of Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat) it was held that, "Where the assessee did not maintain and hence did not produce any Home Chest account though d was his case that the high denomination notes were. Savings from his Page No. | 17 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO personal allowance there was no warrant for drawing an adverse inference. Assessee produced details of withdrawals for past 7…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ndra G. Goradia vs. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 571 (Bom)  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (Pat)  Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT (1963) 47 ITR 634 (All)  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)  Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 8 (Pat)  CIT vs. Kulvant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del)  Atish Singla Vs Income Tax Officer [ITA No.1185/Del/2021 dated 06.04.2022  Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 115 taxmann.com 342 (Del.Trib)  Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs M/s Hirapanna Jewellers [ITA No.253/Viz/2020 dated 12.05.2021] [128 taxmann.com 291 (Viz.Trib.) 9. On taxing such addition unde…

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

…(All.) 3. Assessee produced details of withdrawals for past 7 years, and claimed the amount encashed on demonetization as to be out of savings from such withdrawals, such an explanation cannot be rejected by AO. -Sri Sri Nilkantha Narayan Singh vs. CIT [1951] 20 ITR 8 (Pat) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Assessing Officer has erred directing addition of Rs. 9,72,500/- u/s 69C r. w. s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order under appeal is not only bad in law and invalid, but also against the principles of natural law, equity and justice. The Appellant craves leave to amend…