93 (Delhi) and CIT v. Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala

43 Taxmann.com 133High Court2014#24975 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing 93 (Delhi) and CIT v. Hanuman Prasad Ganeriwala

Rohit Jainendra Jain, Faridabad vs. ACIT CC-5, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8024/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2016-17 Shri Rohit Jainendra Jain, Vs. ACIT CC-5, 965, Sector-15, Faridabad, New Delhi. Haryana 121007. PAN AAMPJ3039N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sanjay Jain, CA Department by: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.08.2023 Date of 27.10.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.08.2019 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 New Delhi (“CIT(A)”)…

M/S.Rashmi Singh, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-26, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2380/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 263Section 50CSection 54

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 2380/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Rashmi Singh Principal Commissioner Vs. 13/14, Indra Bhavan of Income Tax-26 Patel Wadi, Pipeline, 4th Floor, C-10 Kurla West Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai-400 070. Bandra Mumbai. PAN : BAMPS4627L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department by Shri Sanjay Singh Date of Hearing 16.5.2019 Date of Pronouncement 05.7.2019 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned…

White Rose Holdings (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7395/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. Ito-13(3)(2) Room No.227, 2Nd Floor C/O. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan Aaacw0478K (Assessee) (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 White Rose Holdings (India) Pvt.Ltd. ITO-13(3)(2) Room NO.227, 2nd Floor C/o. Mandhania & Associates Vs. 6-A Pil Court Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 111, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 PAN AAACW0478K (Assessee) (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By : Shri Hari S. Raheja Date of Hearing :25.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement :24.05.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member 1. The assessee by way of this appeal is cha…