437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah

Q: How many judgments cite 437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite 437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah (282 ITR 97), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 132(4), Section 153A, Section 28, Section 69B, Section 143(3).

282 ITR 97High Court2006#5488 most cited

What is 437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah authority for?

Assessments cannot be made based on mere presumptions and assumptions; corroborative material is required to support any additions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. C.L. Khatri · 282 ITR 97 · Assessing Officer · presumptions · assumptions · corroborative material · addition in assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 132(4)Section 153A Section 28 Section 69B Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admission section 158b(b)third party information abatement of assessment on money receipt section 194ia section 158bb(1)section 153a proceedings section 245d(4)joint development agreement statement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)

Judgments citing 437 (Bom) (ii) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiincome Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Ward-49(4), Prop M/S. Real Services, New Delhi C-2/36, 2Nd Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi Pan: Aahpc8798E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 69C

…But in the present case, the AO has not brought any material on record to establish that an excess expenditure was incurred. The appellant has also relied upon the following judgments: i) CIT vs. Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del); ii) CIT vs. C.L. Khalri 282 ITR 97 (MR); iii) Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram vs. ITO 63 TTJ 557 (Del); iv) M.P. Mallival vs. JCIT10 SOT 319 (Hyd)(TM); v) ITO vs. L.N. Mehta (HUF) 77 TTJ 63 Jodhopur); vi) ACIT vs. K.H. Dhamdhere 19 SOT 201 (Coch); vii) Harakchand P. Vora vs. ACIT 68 TTJ 417 (Mum); viii) Pradip C. Patel vs. DCIT 58 TTJ 409 (Ahd); ix) Lakshmi Jewellery vs. ACIT 73 TTJ 9…