237 Taxman 104 (Del) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (299 ITR 286)

Q: What is 237 Taxman 104 (Del) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. authority for?

A court can rely on investigation reports during assessment proceedings.

Q: How many judgments cite 237 Taxman 104 (Del) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd.?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite 237 Taxman 104 (Del) CIT v. Shiv Dhooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (299 ITR 286), spanning 2020 to 2025.

Avt Homes Private Limited vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Fbd

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

ITA 1427/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 145Section 68

…elied on<br>the report of the<br>investigation | 299 ITR 286 (Del) CIT vs.<br>Divine Leasing & Finance<br>Ltd.…

Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mr.Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1226/Chny/2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Muthusamy Viknesh Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, 5/242-A,Teachers Colony, Ward-1, Namakkal-637 001. Namakkal. Pan: Agnpv 1117G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 23.01.2024

Section 147Section 148Section 234

…interest under section 234 is mandatory only on tax on income returned and not on tax on unanticipated additions made on assessment is not correct as held in 278 ITR 47 or 198 CTR 670 Uttaranchal High Court - (CIT & Anr. Vs. Reading & Bates Exploration Co.), 299 ITR 286 or 110 ITD 24 or 111 TTJ 55 Mum AT- (Datamatics Ltd. vs. ACIT) and 187 DTR 49 or 77 ITR 91 or 203 TTJ 925 Ranchi AT - (Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO). Probable view that such charging is mandatory is not proper, as if so, these decisions would not have been rendered. If Assessing Officer does not follow these precedent decisions of higher appellate…

Dinesh Salecha, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC- 8(3), Mumbai

In the result appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 5165/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Dr. Deepkant Prasad

Section 13Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154ASection 234BSection 68

…ned Assessing Officer and CIT(A) erred in levying interest under section 234B of ` 959757 without considering the fact that the said interest was not leviable as per the judgment of Datamatics Ltd v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income 2008 110 ITD 24 Mum, 2008 299 ITR 286 Mum, [2007] 111 TTJ Mum. 55.” 3 Shri Dinesh Salecha 3. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income for the assessment year 2008–09 on 31st July 2008, declaring total income of ` 3,90,830. There was a search and seizure action carried out against the RSBL group under section 132 of the Act on 11th J…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Sunstar Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 816/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13