Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

298 ITR 349High Court2008#502 most cited

What is Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO authority for?

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO · 298 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 40A(3) · cash credits · unexplained cash receipts · delivery of goods · genuine business receipts · business payments in cash · APMC payments · business income · Rajasthan High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

business expediencypermanent account numbersection 40a(3)rejection of books of accountaddition under section 68addition u/s 68section 145(3)section 145section 40aprofits and gains of business or professionsection 44absection 115bb

Judgments citing Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

EMERALD GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 956/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 115BSection 145Section 250Section 68

…n the books cannot be assessed u/s 68 merely because they are received in cash, unless the sales are found to be bogus. Reliance is being placed on the following decisions:- (i) Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT (35 ITR 416) (SC), (ii) Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), (iii) Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad). 8. In the present case, the assessee has declared a total turnover of about Rs.270 crores, and the cash sales corresponding to the cash deposits constitute only a negligible fraction of the total turnover. The declared gross profit rate of 0.07% is consistent with the…

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

…be\nincluded in the total income and an\nenquiry whether for the purpose of\nbringing the amount to tax it was\nfrom a business activity or from some\nother source was not relevant\".\n18.\nHon 'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt\nSmt. Harshila Chordia vs\nITO (2008) 298 ITR 349\n(Raj.)\nWherein it was held that "Addition u/s\n68 could not be made in respect of the\namount which was found to be cash\nreceipts from the customers against\nwhich delivery of goods was made to\nthem\"\n19,\nCIT V. Vishal Exports\nOverseas Limited (Gujarat\nHigh Court) Tax Appeal\nNo. 2471 of 2009\nin Para 5/7 it was held that 5. Revenue\ncarr…

LALITHA PADMAJA THALLAPALLI,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 1243/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…d the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SB Investment and Trading Company (supra). A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila 9 Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli Chordia Vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 and also the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puran Chand Mittal (2012) 347 ITR 565. Therefore, in our considered view, the A.O. has erred in making additions towards advances from customers as loan creditors under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the additions mad…

PARESHBHAI NATVARLAL SHAH,NA vs. ARIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAVSARI

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

ITA 1007/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1007/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Pareshbhai Natvarlal Shah Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, बनाम/ 6-B, Sainath Society, Moroli Navsari-396 445 Vs. Bazar, Navsari-396 436 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adfps 0044 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Prakash Patel, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

…reated as unexplained cash deposit. The Ld. AR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of (i) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) (ii) CIT vs. Prdeep Shantilal Patel 221 Taxman 436 (Guj); (iii) CIT vs. Smt. Harshila Chordia 298 ITR 349 (Raj); (iv) ITO vs. Pooja Prints Pvt. Ld. (ITAT Mumbai) and (v) S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.). 6. On the other hand, Ld. SR-DR for the revenue relied on the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have als…

BK GARDEN FRESH PRIVATE LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the two issues as discussed above and allowed on the third issue for statistical purposes

ITA 545/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bk Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Appellant 12, Ramlochan Mullick Street, Kol-700007. [Pan: Aafcb6953P] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(1), Kolkata..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri N. S. Saini, Ar & Satyaki Mondal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,31,194/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Specifically On The Ground Of Large Cash Deposits During Demonetisation Period. Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & After Considering The Submissions & Details Submitted By The Assessee, The Assessing Officer Assessed Total Income At Rs.90,47,322/- After Making The Following Additions: Bk Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd 1. Bad Debts Rs.90,006/- 2. Cash Discount Rs.95,622/- 3. Charity & Donation Rs.50,500/- 4. Disallowed On Cash Deposits At Rs.77,80,000/- U/S 69A

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 69A

…provisions of section 69A will not apply in this case. The ld. AR has cited the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC) 2. Shree Sanad Textiles Industries vs. DCIT in 3. CIT vs. Smt. Harshil Chordia vs. ITO ( 2008) 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan HC) 4.1 The ld. AR further submits that so far the issue of bad debts of Rs.90,006/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act is concerned, the Assessing Officer 2 BK Garden Fresh Pvt. Ltd disallowed the same on the ground that no convincing evidence was furnished by the assessee company ignoring the documents filed by the assessee such as ledger a…

NRI ACADEMY OF SICENCES,VIJAYAWADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.213/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Vs. Nri Academy Of Sciences Income Tax Officer – Exemption 60-3-1/44 Yk Buildings Vijayawada Bus Route No. 5 Ramachandra Nagar Vijayawada, Currency Nagar S.O. Vijayawada (Urban) Krishna – 520008, Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaatn4207C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(iv)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…village where there is no banking facility. Section 40A(3) is, therefore, attracted to payments made for acquiring stock-in-trade and other materials.” 10. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia v. Income-tax Officer [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) deleted the disallowances made under section 40A(3) of the Act by observing as follows: - Page. No 7 I.T.A.No.213/VIZ/2025 NRI ACADEMY OF SCIENCES “Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits - Where genuineness of transaction and identity of payee were established an…

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

…ing as an agent on commission basis. Therefore, the payments did not require to be disallowed in his hands. There is no iota of doubt regarding the genuineness of the payments. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordiavs ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 held as under:- Held: (i) that there was no dispute about the genuineness of the transactions and the payment and identity of the receiver were established. The conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct and the Tribunal by ignoring the scope of clause(j)ofrule6DDasexplainedbytheBoard’sCircularhad erred in reversing the finding…

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ary evidences such as details of party, invoices raised, Form 26AS, bank statements, etc and therefore section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. Income tax officer (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) dated 7 November 2006 (PB 99-106): The High Court held as under: “Apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not…

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 694/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

…ary evidences such as details of party, invoices raised, Form 26AS, bank statements, etc and therefore section 68 of the Act is not applicable. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: • Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. Income tax officer (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj) dated 7 November 2006 (PB 99-106): The High Court held as under: “Apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not…

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 1522/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…oceeds so recorded in cash by\nhanding over the goods or services cannot be considered as unexplained\nincome of the assessee. This issue has already been decided by our\nRajasthan High Court while dealing with the case of Smt. Harshila\nChordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that “Addition u/s\n68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash\nreceipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to\nthem\".\nIt is further submitted that one major fact was ignored by ld. AO that\nsales against cash deposited in the bank accounts maintained in regular\ncourse…

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…2 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Karim Tharuvi Tea Estate 23-25 Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262 (SC). Jurisdictional Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court 6. Smt. Harshila Chordia vs Income-tax Officer Appeal No. 4 of 26-30 2002 NOVEMBER 7, 2006 [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) Other Hon’ble High Courts 7. CIT Vs. Kapil Nagpal, DBITA 609/2014 (Delhi HC) 31-37 8. Goyal Gases (P.) Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [1997] 38-39 94 TAXMAN 57 (DELHI) 9. PCIT Vs. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd. [2019] 105 Taxmann.Com 40-44 206 (Bombay) 10. Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner 45-50 of Income-Tax […

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…tion of the same amount once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal’s order”. (viii) Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Raj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “23. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of…

VINOD GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHUNJHUNU

Appeal is disposed of and the impugned addition is restricted to Rs

ITA 259/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251(1)

…nt once again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order.  Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Harshil Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 has observed as under: "23. So for as question No. 2 is concerned, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee 14 Sh. Vinod…

MAHESHWARA REDDY VENKATAREDDY JONNALA,BYADGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HAVERI

ITA 944/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Magavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 147Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…by relying on the Circular 4 coordinate Benches have deleted the disallowance u/s. 40A (3) of the Act. He referred to the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in 167 ITR 378, Calcutta High Court in Page 4 of 6 179 ITR 22 as well as Rajasthan High Court in 298 ITR 349. Accordingly, it was concluded that disallowance could not have been made. 8. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that the assessee has failed to show the evidence that recipient of the same is a farmer and therefore assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Circular No.220 dated 31.5.1977 and other decisions are distinguishable. 9. We have carefu…

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 451/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

For Appellant: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…Income Tax Officer ITA No.1220/Del/2011 (ITAT Delhi). 12. CIT vs. Jaora Flour and Foods (P) Ltd., [2012] 344 ITR 294. 13. M/s Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No.6520/Del/2018 (ITAT Delhi) 14. CIT vs. Smt. Harshil Chordia vs. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 Raj.” 6. The assessee also questioned the decision of the ld. AO to deny the deduction under the PMGKY, pointing that he had deposited Rs.3,80,00,000/- in his bank 6 CO No.25/LKW/2024 Harshit Garg account out of his sales. In view of the enquiry made by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department and pressure applied by them, he made t…

LALIT R JAGAWAT HUF,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 634/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 634/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Lalit R Jagawat Huf V/S. Dcit, 23(2), 80B Patwa Chawl, Room बिाम Mantru Mandir, Room No. No. 41, 3Rd Floor, Sheikh 114, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, Momon Street, Zaveri Mumbai-400007 Bazar, Mumbai-400002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aachj7165D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash Singh राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Aditya Rai

For Appellant: Shri Satya Prakash SinghFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…e again under section 68 of the Act would tantamount to double taxation of the same income. 7. In view of the above situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order." E) CIT v. Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 (Raj) "23. So far as question No. 2 is concemed, apparently when the Tribunal has found as a fact that the assessee was receiving money from the customers in hands against the payment on delivery of the vehicles on receipt from the dealer the question of such amount standing in the books of account of the assessee would not attract Section 68 bec…

GAZALA HASSAN CHARIYARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed

ITA 5350/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Gazala Hassan Chariyari, Ito Ward– 8(1)(1) Vs. Stall No. 9A, Dadani Rizwan Manzil, Aayakar Bhavan, 124, M E S Marg, Zanda Galli Off, Maharshi Karve Road, Memonwada Road, Mumbai-400 020. Mubmai-400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aaepc3430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69A

… ITO vs. R. S. Sibal [2004]269ITR429(Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC),  CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1969) 721 ITR 807 (SC),  Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT.),  Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj.),  CIT vs. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (Gujrat High Court) Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009,  ITO vs. Surana Traders (2005) 93 TTJ 875: (2005) 92 ITD 212 Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT,  Smt. Teena Bethala Vs ITO (ITA No. 1383/Bang/2019) dated 28.08.2019,  DCIT vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016,  Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (…

MY STYLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(5) LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 134/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow09 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 68

…indings, violating the doctrine of consistency (CIT v. Sun Engineering Works [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC)). 5. Non-Application of Judicial Precedents : The authorities failed to consider binding judicial precedents, including: Smt. Harshtta Chordia v. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj): Cash receipts against goods delivery are trade advances, not unexplained credits. 6. Violation of Natural Justice : The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order without independent inquiry or due consideration of the Appellant's submissions, violating principles of natural justice (Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT [2008J 169 Taxman 328 (SC).” (A.1) This a…

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…at too\nwithout reduced that receipt from the turnover as the Id. AO has already\ntaxed the income generated from the sales. The Id. AR of the assessee\nserviced the decision of our jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt.\nHarshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 in which it was held that\n\"Addition u/s 68 could not be made in respect of the amount which was\nfound to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of\ngoods was made to them”. Thus, the sales recorded in the books of\naccount of the assessee firm cannot be considered as unexplained and\nthereby we direct the Id. AO to delete t…

KUNWAR TOSEEN,KOTDWAR DISTT. PAURI GARHWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KOTDWAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 179/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271A

…s concern the appellant rely upon CIT v/s Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194 (SC); CIT v/s President Ind. 258 ITR 654 (Guj); CIT v/s Kulwant Rai (Del H C);CIT v/s Vishal Exp Overseas Ltd (Guj H C); In The Matter Of Smt Harshile Chorcia VsITO(2008)298 ITR 349 H'ble Rajasthan High Court M/s Agson Global (P) Ltd v/s ACIT(ITAT Del) dt of order 31/10/2019; Amritsar Tri L.T.A. No.195/Asr/2022 Asstt. Yr. 2017-18 Rajkumar v/s ITO dt of judgment 11/04/2023;ITAT Ahmedabad ITA No. 511/Ahd/2020 Asstt. Yrг. 2017-18: ІТО Ward 1(1)(3)Ahmedabad v/s Ashapura Petrochem Marketing Pvt Ltd dt of judgment 18/10/2023:ITA N…

Showing 1–20 of 187 · Page 1 of 10

...