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.

3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI

Q: 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.

262 ITR 633High Court2003#1086 most cited

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.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni · 262 ITR 633 · HC · 2003 · oral admission · search and seizure · incriminating material · section 131(1) · section 131 · panchnama · section 153A · section 143(2) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

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 Section 73 of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)panchnama interest under section 234b section 234b section 234 section 131 section 23 incriminating material search and seizure section 153 section 153a section 15

Judgments citing 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI

Haripal Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow ground no

ITA 6076/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J. S. Reddy

For Appellant: Shri. V.K. Garg, Adv. & Sh. Anil Chopra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Robin Rawal, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 56Section 57

…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.” (ii) 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…