67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v. ACIT

69 ITD 336Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18185 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v. ACIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3740/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…n the hands of the appellant: a) 67 TTJ 602 (Chd) Satpal Singh v ACIT b) 67 TTJ 411 (Chd) Rameshwar Lal Ahuja v ACIT c) 67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v ACIT d) 66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v ACIT e) 37 ITD 96 [Jpr] Manohar Lal v ITO f) 69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v ACIT g) 72 ITD 155 (Mum) Smt Raja Rani Gupta v ACIT h) 70 TTJ 801 (Ahd) ITO v Manilal S Dave 12.5. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the submission of the AR. The argument that income of Mrs. Rekha Gupta is not income of appellant is not tenable, keeping in view the statement of Mrs. Rekha Gupta and, appellan…

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…n the hands of the appellant: a) 67 TTJ 602 (Chd) Satpal Singh v ACIT b) 67 TTJ 411 (Chd) Rameshwar Lal Ahuja v ACIT c) 67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v ACIT d) 66 TTJ 508 (All) Smt. Usha Tripathi v ACIT e) 37 ITD 96 [Jpr] Manohar Lal v ITO f) 69 ITD 336 (Mum} Jaya S Shetty v ACIT g) 72 ITD 155 (Mum) Smt Raja Rani Gupta v ACIT h) 70 TTJ 801 (Ahd) ITO v Manilal S Dave 12.5. I have considered the grounds raised in appeal and the submission of the AR. The argument that income of Mrs. Rekha Gupta is not income of appellant is not tenable, keeping in view the statement of Mrs. Rekha Gupta and, appellan…

Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Khandelwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 68

….26,00,000/- is based on conjunction, surmises and presumption and the addition is bound to be 14 M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur deleted as per the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Jaya S. Shetty vs. ACIT 1999 69 ITD 336 Mum. It was further submitted that Shri Nikhil Tripathi is a third party and list given by him cannot be relied upon. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Astt. Cit vs Omprakash & Co. (2004) 87 TTJ Mumbai 183 stated that "the Department is not empowered to make any addition on the basis of seized papers found from the residence of the thir…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…essment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04 and 2006-07) Chander Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT 71 ITD 245 (Pune): 65 TTJ 327 Addition cannot be made for investment in diamond jewellery on the basis of papers seized when no such diamond jewellery was found. Jaya S.Shetty Vs. ACIT 69 ITD 336 (Mum) Chit of paper neither a document nor a book of account, addition, therefore, could not be sustained. Atul Kumar Jam Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del): 14 DTC 681 Documents seized during search not being clear as to whether items were payments or receipts or some other calculation, so no addition could be made on the basis of such a dumb documents.…

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…n of income @ 9.5% of 12 ITA Nos.7096/M/2017 & Ors. M/s. Mathura Enterprises Rs.38.70 Cr was bad in law and deserved to be deleted. The Ld. A.R. in defense of his arguments placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jaya S. Shetty vs. ACIT 69 ITD 336 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. also stated that the additions were made on the statement given by Mr. Ketan A. Shah which have no evidentiary value as there was no corroboration by the AO either with reference to the books of accounts or other evidences gathered either during survey or during the assessment proceedings as has been held in a series of decisi…

67 TTJ 471 (Chd) Pioneer Publicity Corporation v. ACIT (69 ITD 336) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax