How many judgments cite Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT (407 ITR 254), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 69A, Section 69, Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 115BBE.

Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

407 ITR 254High Court2018#2198 most cited

What is Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority cannot sustain or reclassify an addition made by the Assessing Officer under a specific section of the Income Tax Act by invoking a different section, especially if the alternative section was not the original subject matter of the dispute.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT · Sarika Jain · Section 68 · Section 69A · Income Tax Act 1961 · addition under one section · upholding addition under another section · appellate powers · scope of ITAT · reclassification of income

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 64

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 69A Section 69 Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 115BBE Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 139(3)section 108 section 10ba section 10b(8)section 80ia(8)cost plus method interest on outstanding receivables interest u/s 234c section 80a(5)penalty proceedings initiated section 80ia(4)deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT

Durgawati Panday, Baikunthpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward No 01, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 3Section 68Section 69A

…o delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Ankit Vijaykumar Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1565/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1565/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ankit Vijaykumar Jain, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of 27, Dhananjay Bunglows, 132, FT Income Tax, Ring Road, Sateliet, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No.ADIPJ5727E] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri D K Parikh, A.R. Respondent by: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by…

Sanjana Gupta, Jhansi vs. ITO-Ward-2(3)(1) Jhansi, Jhansi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Prathna Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50C(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sanjana Gupta, Vs. ITO, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AWBPG1536E Assessee by : Smt Prathna Jalan, CA Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 433/AGR/2025 for AY 2014-15, arises out of the order of the ADD/JCIT(A), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „ld. JCIT(A)‟, in short] dated 27.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter…

Gurdas Mal Arora, Kanpur vs. The A O Circle-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 412/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Gurdas Mal Arora v. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. PAN:AFEPM4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT-DR O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal…

Badri Prasad Vishwa Nath Jewels, Lucknow vs. ACIT-2, Lucknow

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

ITA 382/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115BSection 120Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40A(3)Section 68

…sessing Officer invoked section 68 of the I.T. Act. In this regard also he placed reliance on Third Member decision of ITAT reported at JMK Exports vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 481 (Delhi-Trib.); order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sarika Jain vs. CIT 407 ITR 254 (Allahabad)/84 taxmann.com 64 (Allahabad). Moreover, he also placed reliance on order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Lucknow; in the case of Kashinath Seth Saraf vs. DCIT (I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024, order dated 22/09/2025), relevant portion of which is reproduced as under: “(F) Further the assessee has contended that in any case the addition could no…

Adarsh Nursing Institute Pvt Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO-4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Adarsh Nursing Institute Private Limited Behind Sejbahar, Housing Board Colony, Near Kushabhau Thakre Univeristy, Datrenga, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan: Aagca6544C

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…o delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with 7 Adarsh Nursing Institute Private Limited Vs.…

M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 M/s Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur PAN: AANPJ5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR Date of hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- Kanpur, confirming the addition of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- made t…

Arham Star, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2427/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Arham Star Income-Tax Officer, Cw-2090, Bharat Diamond Ward - 19(2)(2), Bourse, Bandra Kurla Mumbai Vs. Complex, Mumbai - 400051 (Pan: Aaafs5695M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Rahul Sarda, Advocate Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1075308198(1), Dated 30/03/2025 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(1), Mumbai, U/S.144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 22.12.2017 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Nfac Failed To Appreciate That The Purchases Made By The Appellant Were Genuine & Supported By Documentary Material Including The Corroboration Of Sales Made From Such Purchases & There Was Not Material To Show That The Purchases Were Not Genuine & Hence, The Same Could Not Have Been Disallowed. 2. The Nfac Erred In Upholding The Addition On The Basis Of Generalized Statements In The Assessment Order Without The Assessing Officer Having Conducted Any Enquiry In The Matter.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…ssessing officer under one provision, and the ITAT does not agree with the disallowance/ addition, then the 7 Arham Star AY 2010-11 ITAT cannot uphold the same disallowance/ addition under some other provision (Para 13 to 19 of Smt. Sarika Jain v. CIT [2018] 407 ITR 254 (All.).” 5. Per Contra, ld. Sr. DR relied upon the decisions of the authorities below. He also placed strong reliance on the decision of Kanak Impex India Ltd. (supra). He submitted that the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases, which he failed to do so and therefore, the addition so made, is justified. He also refe…

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

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

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

…I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'B', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Vs. ACIT, Limited, Sitapur. C/o Sanjay Saxena, 12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat G. T. Road, Shahjahanpur. PAN:AACCK3717F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (D.R.) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:Α.Μ. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.88/Lkw/2024 has been filed by t…

Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

…to delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Sandeep Singh, Juna Lakhanpur vs. ITO Ambikapur, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Prakash Kumar Kshatriya, Rajnandgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgoan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 8. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Seema Devi Agrawal, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, -1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 260ASection 69

…appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal Vs. ITO-1(1), Raipur 7. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of th…

Nisha Nanwani, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Warlywani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- 6 Nisha Nanwani Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only…

Sikha Agrawal, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shikha Agrawal A-9, Ashirbadpuram Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 554 Pan: Cjwpa0265J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- 6 Shikha Agrawal Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raigarh ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with reg…

Anshuka Taneja, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Saroj, Korea vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Saroj W/O. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Pondi Bachra, Korea-497 449 (C.G.) Pan: Etzps9075K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(2)(c)Section 69

…delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 4. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the…

Mitesh Singhania, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2) Raipur, Central Revenue Building, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

…l of the assessee is allowed.” 13 Mitesh Singhania Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in 9. the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of t…

Dayaram Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 131ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.258/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) PAN: ACGPA8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bikram Jain, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख…