10. In CIT v. Jai Pal Agrawal

91 DTR 327High Court#21590 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 136warrant of authorisationsection 142(2)percentage completion methodsection 48section 132(4a)section 69bsection 292cinterest u/s 234asection 292section 145(3)

Judgments citing 10. In CIT v. Jai Pal Agrawal

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…and leads to now here—Addition rightly deleted by the Tribunal—There is no error in the order of the Tribunal and it does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 9.Here is the same position. 10. In CIT v/s Jai Pal Agrawal 91 DTR 327 (Del) held that Tribunal saw the seized paper as a "dumb document" which meant that nothing could be understood from it. There was no date or signature on the seized documents. Thus, it was held that the addition was without any basis. 11. ACIT v/s Rakesh Goyal 87 TTJ 151 (Del) held Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed in…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…and leads to now here—Addition rightly deleted by the Tribunal—There is no error in the order of the Tribunal and it does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 9.Here is the same position. 10. In CIT v/s Jai Pal Agrawal 91 DTR 327 (Del) held that Tribunal saw the seized paper as a…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT- Central Circle-1 Udiapur, Udaipue

ITA 707/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…and leads to now here—Addition rightly deleted by the Tribunal—There is no error in the order of the Tribunal and it does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 9. Here is the same position. 10. In CIT v/s Jai Pal Agrawal 91 DTR 327 (Del) held that Tribunal saw the seized paper as a…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…and leads to now here—Addition rightly deleted by the Tribunal—There is no error in the order of the Tribunal and it does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 9.Here is the same position. 10. In CIT v/s Jai Pal Agrawal 91 DTR 327 (Del) held that Tribunal saw the seized paper as a "dumb document" which meant that nothing could be understood from it. There was no date or signature on the seized documents. Thus, it was held that the addition was without any basis. 11. ACIT v/s Rakesh Goyal 87 TTJ 151 (Del) held Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed in…