218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT

263 CTR 612High Court#20194 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…stified in eyes of law. The surrender either shown by assessee in firm or accepted by department is against provision of law. The firm is not liable for payment of tax on said eflry. The following decided cases clearly indicate the said provision of law." 1) 263 CTR 612- Credit in partners account should not be assessed in firm. 2) 23 Income Tax Matter 37 - Partner's unexplained amount cannot be assessed in firm. 3) 282 CTR 200- Partner's capital cannot be assessed in firm. 4) Supreme Court of India held in CIT Vs Lovely Exports (P) Ltd (2009) 319 ITR (ST) 5 that, "if the share application money is received by a…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…P&H) C1T v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 UR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad 30 I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT xvi) 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) CIT v. Taj Borewells xvii) ITA No. 2912/D/20…

Champ Info Software, Noida vs. Prcit, Noida

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2799/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Champ Info Software, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, E-24, Sector-55, A2, D Block, Sector 24, Noida. Noida (U.P.)-201301 Vs

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…&H) CIT v. Rameshwar Dass Suresh Pal Cheeka vii) 53 Taxman 135 (Guj) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex viii) 141 ITR 706 (All) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance ix) 218 ITR 508 (All) India Rice Mills v. CIT x) 221 ITR 239 (All) Surendra Mahan Seth v. CIT xi) 263 CTR 612 (All) Zafa Ahmad and Co. v. CIT xii) 268 ITR 381 (Pat) CIT v. Md. Perwez Ahmad and Others xiii) 282 CTR 200 (Pat) CIT v. Anurag Rice Mills xiv) 268 ITR 381(Pat) CIT v. Md. Parwez Ahmad xv) 400 ITR 120 (Jhar.) Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT xvi) 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) CIT v. Taj Borewells xvii) ITA No. 2912/D/2014 dated 20.12.2017 Shri Gems…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 68

…AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. a) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 7 b) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO xi) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders xii) 263 CTR 612 (All.) Zafa Ahmed & Co. vs. CIT xiii) 361 ITR 220 (Del) CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the case laws relied upon, Ld. AR requested that the addition in dispute may be deleted and the appeal of the Assessee may be allowed. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused th…