What is 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI authority for?

This case is cited for the proposition that oral admissions made during the course of a search can be considered as evidence.

How many judgments cite 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI?

101 judgments on BharatTax cite 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI (262 ITR 633), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 153A, Section 234B, Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, Section 250 of the Income-tax Act.

3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI (262 ITR 633)

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1030/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1029/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1028/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1027/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1026/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1025/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Sri. E. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1024/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…

Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 43, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2121/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 2121/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Jagdish Prasad Goel -Vs- Dcit, Circle-43, Kolkata [Pan: Affpg 1693 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, Addl. CIT

Section 133ASection 250

…lal Sugar and General Mills Ljtd. Vs. CIT (1987) reported in 168 ITR 705, as the Tribunal held. Its conclusion has been arrived at by a clear misappreciation of the ratio laid down in the said case." (b) In the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO reported in 262 ITR 633 the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held as under. "Even if the assessee had included the same in his return, that would not preclude the assessee from claiming the benefit of law. There cannot be any estoppel against the statute. A property, which is not otherwise taxable, cannot become taxable because of misunderstanding or wrong understanding…

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Indian Oil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…e Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co.Ltd. vs CIT (229 ITR 383), Jute Corporation of India vs CIT (187 ITR 688) both passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as order passed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mayank Poddar HUF vs CWT (262 ITR 633) held in favour of the assessee by observing that if in law the assessee was not liable to be assessed on capital gains arising on transfer of agricultural land then the assessee’s claim for its non assessability cannot be denied merely because in the return filed the assessee had mistakenly offered to pay tax on such income. It appears that the…

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR

Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

…ited the FAA in the month of April, 2013 i.e. on 18/04/2013, that the judgment in the case of Bharat Bijalee Ltd was delivered by the honorable Bombay High Court on 09/05/ 2014,that there was no estoppel against law.He relied upon the cases of Mayank Poddar (262 ITR 633),Nirmal Mehta (269 ITR 268), P Nallammal and Another(6SCC 559), Motor And General Stores (66 ITR 692), Kalidas Dhanjibhai vs. State of Bombay(AIR 1955 SC 62, dtd. 29.10.1954)and Bennett Coleman & Company Ltd (89 taxmann.com 415). The DR supported the order of the FAA and stated that the assessee was not entitled to raise the issue of sale versus…