93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga v. ITO

294 ITR 620High Court2007#17547 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga v. ITO

Tej Singh, Mathura vs. ITO 1(3)(4), Mathura

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’: AGRA (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER Tej Singh, Income Tax Officer, 1(3)(4), S/o Sri Ishwara Mathura Through L/H Baghiram Vs. Village Chhinparai Naughal, Post Maant Mathura PAN-DBVPS 4349B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. M.M.Agarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Shildendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement 27/09/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissi…

Shri Dipendra Nath Chunder, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-54(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the three writ petitions succeed and are allowed and the impugned notices dated 23rd

ITA 2425/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10

Section 114Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 45Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2009-10 Shri Dipendra Nah Chunder Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 11, Old Post Office Street, Ward54(4),3,Govt. V/s. Kolkata-700 001 Place, BBD Bagh, [PAN No.AAGPC 1584 P] Kolkata-700 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Mrs. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 29-01-2020 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 19-02-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2…

Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2404/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri S. S. Godara] आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2404/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Radix Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Kolkata 184/A, Regent Colony, Tollygunge, Kolkata – 700001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecr1237M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.05.2019 Passed In Case No.791/Cit(A)-4/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. For The Reasons Stated In Assessee’S Condonation Petition Dated 27.01.20 Explaining Five Days’ Delay To Be Attributable To Various Procedural Aspects & Compilation Of Necessary Records & On Account Of No Objection From The Revenue Side, I Condone The Impugned Delay Of Five Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate The Same On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…td. 6. Chief Commissioner (Admn.) (U.P.) v. Kanhaiya Lal Kapoor [2005] 147 Taxman 12 (All.) 7. Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) 8. Deep Chand Daga v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 661 (M.P.) and, 9. Fisher Xomox Sanmar Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2007]294 ITR 620/[2008] 168 Taxman 251 (Mad.) 14. None of the judgments referred to above have any connection to the point in issue even remotely. They relate either to the question of non-disclosure of income or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the income fully or truly and what amounts to "reason to believe an information". None of these points w…

Smt. Nirmala Nigam, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 703/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 149(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam v. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur TAN/PAN:AFCPN4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 20 02 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-10 against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, dated 4/8/2017, taking the following grounds:- 1. BECAUSE the Income-tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur was not vested with the…

Usha Agarwal, Agra vs. ITO 4(4), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 167/AGR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No. 167/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Smt. Usha Agarwal, Vs..ITO,-4(4), 95-Kaveri Kunj, Phase-II, Kamla Agra. Nagar, Agra. PAN No.ABTPA2565N (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri Anurag Sinha, AR. Revenue by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR. Date of Hearing 30.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2018 ORDER This is assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, taking the following grounds: “1. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall circumstances of the case 'appellant' denies its liability t…