141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT

64 ITD 104Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#18146 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…[2015] 232 Taxman 483 (Gujarat) 9. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 10. CIT vs. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT, [1997] 63 ITD 15 (Patna ) (TM) 12. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh v. WTO, [1998] 64 ITD 104 (Delhi)/[1997] 59 TTJ 504 (Delhi) (6) The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as far as imposition of penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act is concerned. He submitted that the assessees’ claim that the disclosures of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- were made by the Nirala Group U/s 132(4) of I.T. Act was not borne out from record. He pointed…

Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…[2015] 232 Taxman 483 (Gujarat) 9. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 10. CIT vs. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT, [1997] 63 ITD 15 (Patna ) (TM) 12. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh v. WTO, [1998] 64 ITD 104 (Delhi)/[1997] 59 TTJ 504 (Delhi) (6) The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as far as imposition of penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act is concerned. He submitted that the assessees’ claim that the disclosures of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- were made by the Nirala Group U/s 132(4) of I.T. Act was not borne out from record. He pointed…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…[2015] 232 Taxman 483 (Gujarat) 9. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 10. CIT vs. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT, [1997] 63 ITD 15 (Patna ) (TM) 12. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh v. WTO, [1998] 64 ITD 104 (Delhi)/[1997] 59 TTJ 504 (Delhi) (6) The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as far as imposition of penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act is concerned. He submitted that the assessees’ claim that the disclosures of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- were made by the Nirala Group U/s 132(4) of I.T. Act was not borne out from record. He pointed…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…[2015] 232 Taxman 483 (Gujarat) 9. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 10. CIT vs. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT, [1997] 63 ITD 15 (Patna ) (TM) 12. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh v. WTO, [1998] 64 ITD 104 (Delhi)/[1997] 59 TTJ 504 (Delhi) (6) The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as far as imposition of penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act is concerned. He submitted that the assessees’ claim that the disclosures of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- were made by the Nirala Group U/s 132(4) of I.T. Act was not borne out from record. He pointed…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…[2015] 232 Taxman 483 (Gujarat) 9. Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co. [1989] 178 ITR 451 10. CIT vs. Behari Lal Pyare Lal [1983] 141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT, [1997] 63 ITD 15 (Patna ) (TM) 12. Surjeet Singh Mahan Singh v. WTO, [1998] 64 ITD 104 (Delhi)/[1997] 59 TTJ 504 (Delhi) (6) The Ld. CIT (DR) vehemently supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) as far as imposition of penalty U/s 271AAA of I.T. Act is concerned. He submitted that the assessees’ claim that the disclosures of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- were made by the Nirala Group U/s 132(4) of I.T. Act was not borne out from record. He pointed…

141 ITR 32 11. Abhay Kumar v. ACIT (64 ITD 104) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax