90 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT v. Arjun Dass Kalwani

95 TTJ 885Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#26088 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing 90 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT v. Arjun Dass Kalwani

SH. MAHENDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…l case laws: CIT vs. Ms Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) DTR 169 (MR) GITvs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy. CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha vs. Asstt. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (visakha) Smt. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT TTJ 974 (Jab) 5.1 I have considered the submissions of the assessee and the impugned assessment order. The Ld AO had proceeded to add the entire amount as no explanation to the source of the jewellery was provided. The assessee in his submission dated 28.9.2012 had further contended that total jewe…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 81/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…. CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that assessee had turnover Rs. 68.89 lakhs on which assessee has declared income at the rate of 8% but section 44AD being not applicable, profit rates of 10% should be appl…

MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 6396/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69