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.

How many judgments cite Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO?

187 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (298 ITR 349), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 142(1), Section 145(3).

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (298 ITR 349)

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…sr/2018 J k) Prime Infra Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO in ITA No.7144/Del/2017 dated 27-06-2018 l) Sri Laxmi Satranarayana Oil Mills vs. CIT 367 ITR 200 (T & AP) m) Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. in ITA No.5170/Del/2014 dated 11/09/2017 n) Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) 26. Ld.AR has also relied on decisions reproduced in para 20 hereinabove in while discussing the legal issue. 27. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that all these decisions relied upon by Ld.AR are in context of 153A/153C proceedings, wherein additions were made by assessing officer in a concluded assessment withou…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1166/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…sr/2018 J k) Prime Infra Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO in ITA No.7144/Del/2017 dated 27-06-2018 l) Sri Laxmi Satranarayana Oil Mills vs. CIT 367 ITR 200 (T & AP) m) Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. in ITA No.5170/Del/2014 dated 11/09/2017 n) Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) 26. Ld.AR has also relied on decisions reproduced in para 20 hereinabove in while discussing the legal issue. 27. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that all these decisions relied upon by Ld.AR are in context of 153A/153C proceedings, wherein additions were made by assessing officer in a concluded assessment withou…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…sr/2018 J k) Prime Infra Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO in ITA No.7144/Del/2017 dated 27-06-2018 l) Sri Laxmi Satranarayana Oil Mills vs. CIT 367 ITR 200 (T & AP) m) Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. in ITA No.5170/Del/2014 dated 11/09/2017 n) Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) 26. Ld.AR has also relied on decisions reproduced in para 20 hereinabove in while discussing the legal issue. 27. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that all these decisions relied upon by Ld.AR are in context of 153A/153C proceedings, wherein additions were made by assessing officer in a concluded assessment withou…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…sr/2018 J k) Prime Infra Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITO in ITA No.7144/Del/2017 dated 27-06-2018 l) Sri Laxmi Satranarayana Oil Mills vs. CIT 367 ITR 200 (T & AP) m) Marigold Merchandise (P) Ltd. in ITA No.5170/Del/2014 dated 11/09/2017 n) Harshila Chordia vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) 26. Ld.AR has also relied on decisions reproduced in para 20 hereinabove in while discussing the legal issue. 27. On the contrary, Ld.Standing Counsel for revenue submitted that all these decisions relied upon by Ld.AR are in context of 153A/153C proceedings, wherein additions were made by assessing officer in a concluded assessment withou…

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…once 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 l. CIT v. Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 Raj- Para 23 held that 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 account of the assessee would not attra…

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

…once 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 l. CIT v. Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 Raj- Para 23 held that 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 account of the assessee would not attra…

Murtuja Husainbhai Hirani, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Prop. Of R. K. Bullion, Navsari Shop No.5, Pranav Chamber Madhumati, Navsari – 396445, Gujarat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aciph3680D Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 09/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…me Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh, 191 ITR 667, that section 40A(3) of the Act does not eliminate considerations Murtuja Hussainbhai Hirani of business expediencies. The Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia Vs. ITO 298 ITR 349 (Raj) had observed that the exceptions contained in Rule 6DD are not exhaustive and that the said rule must be interpreted liberally. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT Jaipur in the case of Daga Royal Arts, 94 taxmann.com 401 (JP-trib) held that no disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act should be made where identity of sellers from whom various…

Shri Ravinder Sachdeva, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 (4), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 263/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…on following decisions, wherein it is held that receipts in cash against sale consideration cannot be added under section 68 of the Act: Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia vs ITO: 298 ITR 349 [Refer Page No.86 to 95 of the Paper Book] wherein addition made under section 68 was deleted by the Court in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them. The relevant extracts are reproduced as under: {Refer Page No 93 of the Paper Book. “So far as question No. 2…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 122/CHNY/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 121/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 120/CHNY/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 119/CHNY/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 118/CHNY/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 117/CHNY/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 40A(3)

…xception as carved out in the Rule 6DD, the CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s claim vide para 6.3.12 as under:- 6.3.12 The Appellant further relied upon the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia V. ITO as reported in [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan), In this case the assessee was an agent collected consideration for the sale price of scooter/mopeds from the customer from place and remitted to the principal agent at another place. ITA Nos.117 to 122/Chny/2023 To facilitate this transaction the assessee remitted received cash frorm the customer to the bank account of the principal…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bhilai vs. Shri Nitin Sankhla, Durg

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR

Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…68 cannot be made in respect of amount which were found tobe cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods were made to them. The credit on account of sales are not unexplained when sales details are available. [ Smt Harshila Chordia vs ITO 298 ITR 349 Raj]. The ITAT in this case held that addition u/s 68 cannot be made in respect of the amount which was found to be cash receipts from the customers against which delivery of goods was made to them. Where all the records relating to purchase and sales including quantitative details are maintained there no addition u/s 68 in call for treating th…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…ount as income of the assessee under any other Section of the Act can be made as it would be a double addition. In the result, we delete the addition made and allow its claim of the assessee." b) CIT v. Smt. Harshil Chordia v. ITO (Rajasthan High Court) 2008 298 ITR 349 Raj "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 account of the assessee would not attract Section 68 because…

Giant Construction Company, Saidapet vs. ACIT, CC -1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 435/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.435/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Giant Construction Company, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 19/10 F1, Rangarajapuram, 4Th Street, Income Tax, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Central Circle 1(4), Chennai. [Pan:Aakfg4335N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh. Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 31.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Construction Company, A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Executing Civil Contract Work For Pwd Department & Railways. The Partners Of The Assessee Firm Were Shri K. Don Alex Raja, Shri P. Janakar & Shri S. Senthilkumar

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 153CSection 40A(3)

…as not correct and prayed for deleting the addition made under section 40A(3) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the following case law: 1. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO [1991] 59 Taxman 11(SC) 2. Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) 3. A. Daga Royal Arts v. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 401 (Jaipur – Trib) 4. Om Balaji Stores v. ITO in ITA No. 891/Chny/2020 dated 15.06.2022. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the payment was made to a construction company, which is being unaccounted and the assessee has not brought on record any evidence that the cas…

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…in the assessment proceedings. As regards the receipt of the cash from the customer the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the findings of the jurisdiction high 25 Mukesh Soni vs. ITO court judgement in the case of Smt. Harshil Chordia Vs. ITO reported at 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan-HC). In this case the Jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court have held that 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…

T.Rajendran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2032/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2032/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…in turn assured and deposited the amount in a bank account. In the facts of the present case, rigors of section 40A(3) of the Act must be lifted. 23. We notice that the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in case of Suit. Harshila Chordia v. ITO f2008] 298 ITR 349 /Rail had observed that the exceptions contained in Rule 6DD are not exhaustive and that the said rule must be interpreted liberally. 24. Before closing, we may clarify that the above observations would apply only to the cash payments made by the assessee to the Tata Teleservices Limited. No such peculiar facts arise in case of payments made to t…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…2 Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur erred in invoking the provisions of Section 68 in respect of such cash sales. Attention is drawn towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 [CLC Pages 310 to 215] wherein the Hon’ble High Court held as under: “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…

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

Bhandari Gold and Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal), NFAC - Delhi

Cy. CIT 6(1) (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bhandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

Murtuja Husainbhai Hirani, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

Shri Ravinder Sachdeva, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -5 (4), Amritsar

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

M/S M.Shyamalanathan, Salem vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Salem

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bhilai vs. Shri Nitin Sankhla, Durg

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

Giant Construction Company, Saidapet vs. ACIT, CC -1(4), Chennai

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

T.Rajendran, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20, Chennai

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur