70 ACIT v. Vijay Gopal Jindal, 24 SOT 296 (Del( Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

384 ITR 161High Court2016#20698 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing 70 ACIT v. Vijay Gopal Jindal, 24 SOT 296 (Del( Balmukund Acharya v. DCIT

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Datla Shanti, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस बालाकृ"णन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.33/Viz/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs. Smt. Datla Shanti, Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AJFPD 6650 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee by : Sri I. Kama Sastry, AR ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue by :…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

…dward Governor India (P.) Ltd., [2009] 312 ITR 254 (SC) [Para 10]; ACIT vs Vijay Gopal Jindal [2008] 24 SOT 296 (DELHI) [Para 25] Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT, (2009) 310 ITR 310 (Bom); Basant Poddar vs. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 529 (Kar); Girish Bansal v. UOI (2016) 384 ITR 161 (Delhi); Y. Rathiesh vs. CIT, (2015) 372 ITR 73 (AP); Raja Malwinder Singh vs. CWT [2011] 334 ITR 115 (P 86 HI; Azimganj Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, [2015] 372 ITR 243 (Cal)(Mag.); 27. Without prejudice to the above, it was submitted that Explanation 2 to section 37 introduced by Finance Act, 2015 barring the allowability of CSR applies only to th…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 37Section 37(1)

Dr. Harprit Singh, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 195/ASR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.195/Asr/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2011-12 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Dr. Harprit Singh, C/O M/S. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Orthonova Hospital, Near Nari Income-Tax, Niketan, Nakoddar Road, Central Circle –Ii, Jalandhar Jalandhar(Pb) (Pb) Pan: Acmps 7237 F अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…with the company. The AO has not pointed out that cash deposits are not out of cash in hand of the company, no discrepancies have been pointed out by the AO.The learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance in the case of Girish Bansal & Anr v. UOI [2016] 384 ITR 161 (Delhi) wherein it was held when the cash deposits are taxed under section 68 it cannot be taxed under section 69 of the Act nor can be brought to tax as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act.In the light of above submission, the learned Counsel submitted, the CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining the addition, when the AO was not certain…