969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha v. Asstt. CIT

60 DTR 96Reported decision#25344 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing 969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha v. Asstt. CIT

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 180/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…J (Mumbai) 223 (2003) 87 ITD 607 (Mumbai) 2. Asstt. CIT Vs. Dr. Mohan Lal Swarnkar 92005) 95 TTJ (Jp) 969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha Vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Visakh) 885. 5. Kirti Foods limited 60 DTR 96 17. He accordingly submitted that the provision of section 40A(3) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 40A(3) by making cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000/-…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 179/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…J (Mumbai) 223 (2003) 87 ITD 607 (Mumbai) 2. Asstt. CIT Vs. Dr. Mohan Lal Swarnkar 92005) 95 TTJ (Jp) 969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha Vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Visakh) 885. 5. Kirti Foods limited 60 DTR 96 17. He accordingly submitted that the provision of section 40A(3) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 40A(3) by making cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000/-…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the above appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 178/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…J (Mumbai) 223 (2003) 87 ITD 607 (Mumbai) 2. Asstt. CIT Vs. Dr. Mohan Lal Swarnkar 92005) 95 TTJ (Jp) 969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha Vs. Asstt. CIT (2005) 94 TTJ (Visakh) 885. 5. Kirti Foods limited 60 DTR 96 17. He accordingly submitted that the provision of section 40A(3) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 40A(3) by making cash payments in excess of Rs.20,000/-…

969 3. Janta Tiles Vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 695 10 4. Smt. Bommana Swarna Rekha v. Asstt. CIT (60 DTR 96) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax