204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons. v. CIT

61 TTJ 145Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18127 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing 204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons. v. CIT

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Subhash Gupta, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 613/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R.Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 245Section 69Section 69A

…t the admission made by him probably is in fact not correct and true......" The other case laws on the issue are: DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Subhash Gupta, Jaipur 1. ACIT v. Shri Dharam Pal Gulati ITA No. 671/Del/2012 dated 20.6.2013 2. India Seed House V. ACIT 61 TTJ 145 (Mum Trib.) 3. Arun Kumar Bhansal V. DCIT 10 SOT 46 (Bang) The judgements cited by Ld. A.O. are also more or less enunciates the same principle of law that statement can be resiled if assessee can conclusively prove that it was incorrect. The judgement cited by Ld. A.O. are on different facts and are in the context where assessee simply retracts…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…269UD. Hence is not relevant. Case 9:- M/s Hamamp Property P. Ltd. vs. ACIT 3811/DEL/2005 The present case is distinguishable because the purchase by the appellant company of land was at a rate higher than DLC value. Case 10:- Pranav Construction Co. vs. ACIT 61 TTJ 145 In this case from para 8, it is clear that partner of the assessee firm admitted on money receipt under section 132(4). Whereas in our case there is no such admission. Case 11:- Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT 248 ITR 381 In this case addition was based on undisclosed advance detected from seized documents whereas no such document is seized from…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5097/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 377 (Delhi) (ii) Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons v. CIT 142 ITR 509 (iv) Pranav Construction Co. v. Asst. CIT 61 TTJ 145 (Mumbai) On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 29. After considering the rival submissions and perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the assessee‟s main contention is that „Satyanarayan puja‟ is done at the business premises for the larger interest of the professional and employees of t…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5096/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 377 (Delhi) (ii) Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons v. CIT 142 ITR 509 (iv) Pranav Construction Co. v. Asst. CIT 61 TTJ 145 (Mumbai) On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 29. After considering the rival submissions and perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the assessee‟s main contention is that „Satyanarayan puja‟ is done at the business premises for the larger interest of the professional and employees of t…

Deloitte Haskins and Sells, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5094/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 244ASection 40

…reliance was placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs Mohan Meakin Ltd. [2010] 189 Taxman 377 (Delhi) (ii) Commercial Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons v. CIT 142 ITR 509 (iv) Pranav Construction Co. v. Asst. CIT 61 TTJ 145 (Mumbai) On the other hand, the learned DR strongly relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 29. After considering the rival submissions and perusal of the impugned orders, we find that the assessee‟s main contention is that „Satyanarayan puja‟ is done at the business premises for the larger interest of the professional and employees of t…

204 ITR 505 (Guj.) (iii) Brijram Das & Sons. v. CIT (61 TTJ 145) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax