Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT

257 CTR 159High Court2013#2032 most cited

What is Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT authority for?

An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, especially if made under pressure or later retracted, is not sustainable without corroborative evidence. Similarly, additions based on uncorroborated loose papers or unaccounted cash receipts lacking corresponding assets are unsustainable.

56

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

Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT · Section 132(4) · Section 132 · retraction of statement · uncorroborated evidence · addition to income · search and seizure assessment · undue pressure · loose papers · unexplained cash · voluntary admission

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 132(1)(a)section 181section 65(b)section 194qvoluntary admissioncash found during searchsection 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 193section 158b(b)section 65b(4)

Judgments citing Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisio…

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 69A

…(i) KailashbenManharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat)\n(j) CIT, Central –II, Mumbai Vs Omprakash K. Jain (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay)\n(k) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)\n(1) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand)\n(m) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187\n(Andhra Pradesh)\n(n) Chetnaben J. Shah Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3) (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\n(o) CIT vs Jagdish Prasad Mohan Lal Joshi (2018) 99 Taxman.com 288(SC)\n(p) Mantri Share Broker P Ltd. (96) Taxmann.com 279 (Rajasthan)\n1(vi) The case…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman Professional Automotives Private Limited vs. ACIT 187 (Andhra Pradesh), Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat)." (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as und…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied). Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents 53. In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) 54. Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) 55. CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) 56. CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) 57. Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) 58. CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) 59. PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) 60 Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) 61. It has similarly been he…

MA SMART DEVELOPERS MANGALORE PVT LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

…ets with reference to unaccounted cash receipt of Rs.4,93,05,000/- was brought on record. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain this addition. For this proposition, we rely on the following judgement: a) Sri Ganesh Trading Company Vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) 3.9 In the case of CIT Vs. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mum), wherein held that “loose papers found during the course of search and after considering the relevant facts held that no addition could be made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting in loose paper found during the course of search action beca…

MA SMART DEVELOPERS MANGALORE PVT LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

…ets with reference to unaccounted cash receipt of Rs.4,93,05,000/- was brought on record. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain this addition. For this proposition, we rely on the following judgement: a) Sri Ganesh Trading Company Vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) 3.9 In the case of CIT Vs. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mum), wherein held that “loose papers found during the course of search and after considering the relevant facts held that no addition could be made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting in loose paper found during the course of search action beca…

MA SMART DEVELOPERS MANGALORE PVT LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

…ets with reference to unaccounted cash receipt of Rs.4,93,05,000/- was brought on record. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain this addition. For this proposition, we rely on the following judgement: a) Sri Ganesh Trading Company Vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) 3.9 In the case of CIT Vs. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mum), wherein held that “loose papers found during the course of search and after considering the relevant facts held that no addition could be made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting in loose paper found during the course of search action beca…

MA SMART DEVELOPERS MANGALORE PVT LTD.,,MANGALORE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

…ets with reference to unaccounted cash receipt of Rs.4,93,05,000/- was brought on record. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to sustain this addition. For this proposition, we rely on the following judgement: a) Sri Ganesh Trading Company Vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) 3.9 In the case of CIT Vs. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in 53 ITR (Trib) 416 (Mum), wherein held that “loose papers found during the course of search and after considering the relevant facts held that no addition could be made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting in loose paper found during the course of search action beca…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…arat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,\nMumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh\n& Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh\nTrading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159\n(Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor\nTransport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs.\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nThe Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:-\n\"In view of the law discussed above, i…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…arat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,\nMumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh\n& Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh\nTrading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159\n(Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor\nTransport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs.\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nThe Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:-\n\"In view of the law discussed above, i…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…arat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,\nMumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh\n& Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh\nTrading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159\n(Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor\nTransport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs.\nIncome Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nThe Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:-\n\"In view of the law discussed above, i…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…jarat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,\nMumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh\n& Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh\nTrading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159\n(Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor\nTransport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J.\nShah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nThe Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under:-\n\"In view of the law discussed above, i…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Thru” V.H.)
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 69A

…Gujarat), Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbal Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay), Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC): Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh). Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat)" (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under- 9 M/S. KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PVT LTD VS DCIT, C…

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

Sri Ganesh Trading Company v. CIT (257 CTR 159) — Cited in 56 Judgments | BharatTax