(vi) Hinima Atul Shah v. ITO

164 Taxmann.com 439Reported decision2024#22961 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115bb section 115b double taxation unexplained money section 115bbe unexplained cash credit section 115 undisclosed income section 68 section 11 previous year section 143

Judgments citing (vi) Hinima Atul Shah v. ITO

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 412/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Sitaram Badri Narain Mawawale ACIT, Vs. 116, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Johari Central Circle-01, Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYFS1511Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA & Sh. R. K. Bhatra,…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 648/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Private DCIT, Vs. Limited, Central Circle-02, F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA & Sh. R.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Aura Jewels, Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 68

…. CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 24 of 25 like demonetization is incorrect. The approach of the AO in treating cash sales exceeding the average as bogus is both flawed and unjustified. 20.7 We note that the Ahmedabad Tribunal, in the case of Hinima Atul Shah vs. ITO (164 Taxmann.com 439), dealt with identical facts and circumstances and deleted the addition. The relevant finding of the bench extracted as under: 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has accepted the transactions about purchase and sale of jewellery in gold a…