Vide Harish Kumar v. Dy. CIT

85 ITD 366Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#22110 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbesection 250nfactotal incomebusinessdocument

Judgments citing Vide Harish Kumar v. Dy. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness of creditor was also not in doubt, the addition had been made on presumption surmise and suspicion and, therefore, cannot stand - Vide Harish Kumar v. Dy. CIT 85 ITD 366 (Hyd-Trib). b) It is submitted that a survey u/s. 133A was carried out on the business premises of the Appellant firm on 7-12-2020 where statements u/s.131 of Mr. Vincent Albuquerque, partner of the Appellant firm were recorded. During the course of his deposition he has provided the list of the persons to whom services were provided but could he…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…Further the assessee has discharged burden of proof and genuineness of transaction, creditworthiness of creditor was also not in doubt, the addition had been made on presumption surmise and suspicion and, therefore, cannot stand - Vide Harish Kumar v. Dy. CIT 85 ITD 366 (Hyd-Trib). b) It is submitted that a survey u/s. 133A was carried out on the business premises of the Appellant firm on 7-12-2020 where statements u/s.131 of Mr. Vincent Albuquerque, partner of the Appellant firm were recorded. During the course of his deposition he has provided the list of the persons to whom services were provided but could he…

SHRI SANJAYKUMAR ZAMATMAL KALWANI,SIDHPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69B

…Exports Overseas Ltd (Tax Appeal No.2471 of 2009) (ii) Nitisha Silk Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO (ITA No. 896/Ahd/2011) I.T.A No. 64/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 (iii) ITO Vs. Jethu Ram Prem Chand [2001] 114 Taxmman 291 (Del) (iv) Harish Kumar Vs., DCIT [2003] 85 ITD 366 (Hyd.) 8. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record on this issued. 9. We find that, as per the financial statements available before the Revenue Authorities, the total sales were Rs1,58,30,380/- and purchases were to the tune of Rs.1,32,35,740/-. The assessee is a fruit seller who has been depositing…

SMT. BEENA GUTGUTIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2414/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

…been made in the hands of the tax-payer and not an old lady like the assessee. The Ld. AR also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs Smt. P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 and on the decision by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in Harish Kumar vs DCIT 85 ITD 366 (Hyd) for the proposition that additions u/s 68 were not tenable. 6. The Ld. DR, in response, defended the impugned order and submitted that the additions have been made on account of amounts credited to the capital account of the assesee and hence provisions of section 68 are fully applicable. He submitted that the impugned order deserves to b…