1. 228 Taxman 62(SC) CIT v Gita Duggal 2. 54 ITR(Trib) 37 (Mum) ACIT v. Sanjay B Pahadia 3

45 ITR (Trib) 228Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#20997 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 1. 228 Taxman 62(SC) CIT v Gita Duggal 2. 54 ITR(Trib) 37 (Mum) ACIT v. Sanjay B Pahadia 3

FAROOQ ABDULLA MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23 (1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. V raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7906/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blefarooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 Pan: Ahupm7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented By : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Farooq Abdulla Merchant V. Income Tax Officer- Ward – 23(1)(4) Matru Mandir, Tardev Road A-1401, Poseidon Tower Mumbai – 400 007 Versova, Yari Road Above Indian Bank, Versova Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400061 PAN: AHUPM7426K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vimal Punamiya Department Represented by : Smt. Vranda U. Matkarni Date of conclusion of Hearing : 03.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.05.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHM…

SUNANDAN KUMAR MINOCHA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-63(1), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3135/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.S. PANNU and SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3135/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Sunandan Kumar Minocha, vs. ITO, Ward 63 (1), C/o Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate New Delhi. F-26/124, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. (PAN : ADVPM4777E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Harpal Singh, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 25.10.2021 Date of Order : 23.12.2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM : Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned ord…

LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI SUNIL DUTT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2972/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2972/Mum/2012 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of CIT vrs. Raman Kumar Suri (2013) 212 Taxman 411/29 taxman.com 231 (Bom)and further relied upon the following case laws:- 1. 228 Taxman 62(SC) CIT v Gita Duggal 2. 54 ITR(Trib) 37 (Mum) ACIT v Sanjay B Pahadia 3. 394 ITR 666(Mad) CIT v Gumanmal Jain 4. 45 ITR (Trib) 228 (Mum) Nilesh Pravin Vora & Anr. v ITO 5. 413 ITR 189 (Mad) Tilokchand And Sons v ITO 17. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that it was not brought to the notice of authorities below about the combined flats and further he submitted that it is not proved by the assessee that the flats were combined during the assessment year under consid…

ITO (IT) 3(1), MUMBAI vs. KAVITA GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6884/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito (It)-3(1), Room No.114, Vs. Ms. Kavita Gupta, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Flat No. 1901-A, Sahyadri, Ballard Pier, N.M. Road, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad Mumbai – 38 (East), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan No. Anrpg 0004 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Shridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen,D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

…ase of CIT-II, Hyderabad vs. Syed Ali Adil (2013) 352 ITR 418 (AP), and an order of a coordinate bench of the Tribunal on the aforesaid proposition in the case of Nilesh Pravin Vora & Yatin ITO vs. Ms. Kavita Gupta – A.Y. 2009-10 6 Pravin Vora vs. ITO (2016) 45 ITR (Trib) 228 (Mum). Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short, „D.R‟) relied on the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal has been sou…