Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai

123 ITD 136Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#9555 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 69ASection 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 68Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 2(12a)section 127(2)(a)section 106section 66section 127(2)section 114preponderance of probabilityretraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 144aincome tax settlement commission

Judgments citing Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…(1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vii) Sreelekha Banerjee vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) (viii) Renu T. Tharani vs. DCIT ITA no. 2333/Mum/2018-ITAT- Mumbai. (ix) Durai Murugan Kathir Anand vs. Addl CIT (2022) 443 ITR 423 (Madras) (x) Vivek N. Jajodia vs. ITO (2010) 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai) (xi) Konathala Nooku Naidu v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1 [2024] 160 taxmann.com 758 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.)[18-03-2024] [I.T.A. No.269/Viz/2023] (xii) Kailash Swaroop Agarwal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 175 / 2012 in order dated 03/10/2017 Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court (xiii) Commissioner of Income…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

ITA 1465/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…on. However such sworn statement was rejected\nby the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of\nProbability\n(vii) Judgement in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2).\nMumbai[2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134\nTTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-2009]\nThe relevant para of the judgement are extracted here under as relied upon:-\n\"8. The learned D.R. in reply submitted that there is preponderance of probability\nagainst the assessee as the gifts are not customary. There are no mutual gifts\ngiven by the assessee to the foreign persons. The basi…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1464/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…on. However such sworn statement was rejected\nby the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of\nProbability\n(vii) Judgement in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2).\nMumbai[2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134\nTTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-2009]\nThe relevant para of the judgement are extracted here under as relied upon:-\n\"8. The learned D.R. in reply submitted that there is preponderance of probability\nagainst the assessee as the gifts are not customary. There are no mutual gifts\ngiven by the assessee to the foreign persons. The basi…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…ssion. However such sworn statement was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of Probability (vii) Judgement in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2). Mumbai[2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-2009] The relevant para of the judgement are extracted here under as relied upon:- "8. The learned D.R. in reply submitted that there is preponderance of probability against the assessee as the gifts are not customary. There are no mutual gifts given by the assessee to the foreign persons. The basic re…

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

…Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the source from\nwhich it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and\nproved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has…

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

…Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the source from\nwhich it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and\nproved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has…

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

…Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras](25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the source from\nwhich it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and\nproved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has…

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

…Durai Murugan\nKathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com\n70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)(25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N.\nJajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581\n(Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-\n2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove\nthat the funds deposited / paid to the seller of property are from the source from\nwhich it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and\nproved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…Commission. However such sworn statement was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was decided as per Preponderance of Probability Judgement in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai) [23-01-2009] The relevant para of the judgement are extracted here under as relied upon- *8. The learned D.R. in reply submitted that there is pre-ponderance of probability against the assessee as the gifts are not customary. There are no mutual gifts given by the assessee to the foreign persons. The basic res…

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69C

…e assessee. All these transactions has to be linked and proved. The onus in this regard is on the assesse which has not been discharged. (x) Judgement in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)(23-01-2009) TAX DEPARTME The relevant para of the judgement are extracted here under as relied upon:- 10 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni vs. DCIT *8. The learned D.R. in reply submitted that there is preponderance of probability against the assessee as the gifts are not customary. There are no mutual gifts given by th…

SANDEEP KHERADA,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

ITA 610/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: MS Alka Gautam (CIT)(V.H)
Section 131Section 144

…of Durai Murugan Kathir Anand v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2022] 136 taxrnann.com 70 (Madras)/[2022] 443 ITR 423 (Madras)[25-02-2022] and in the case of Vivek N. Jajodia v. Income-tax Officer, 16(2)(2), Mumbai [2011] 10 ITR(T) 581 (Mumbai)/[2010] 123 ITD 136 (Mumbai)/[2010] 134 TTJ 806 (Mumbai)[23-01-2009] are applicable to the present appeal. The onus is on the assesse to prove that the funds deposited in his bank account are from the source from which it is being claimed. All these source transactions has to be linked and proved. The onus in this regard is on the assessee which has not been dischar…