ACIT v. Ramanbhai B. Patel

94 TTJ 867Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#14563 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)section 40a(3)entry operatorsection 40asearch assessmentdocuments seizedsection 153dsection 234aaccommodation entrysection 133asection 40

Judgments citing ACIT v. Ramanbhai B. Patel

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…o. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002\n•\nVinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC)\n•\nJagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689)\n(Mum)\n•\nRajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.)\n•\nAsst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867\n(Ahd)\n•\nAishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum)\n•\nS.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM)\n•\nCBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410\n•\nM.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai)\n200\n•\nCIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)]\n•\nShree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159]\n•\nACIT v. G…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ruction No. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002 • Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200 CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] • ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Indu…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ruction No. 286 /2/2003 (Inv.) It Dt. 10/3/2002 • Vinod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 21 of 73 • CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257…

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

….)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  ACIT Vs Ramanbhai B. Patel (2008) 12 DTR 471 (Ahd) (Trib)  ACIT Vs Jorawar Singh M. Rathod (2005) 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd.) 34. So far as statement of partner Mr. Rajesh Pengawala is concerned. The ld. AR submits that in his statement was recorded on 06.01.2010 during the survey from copy of pages placed on record. Though the Assessing Officer recorded in the table that Rajesh Pengawala in his statement stated during the survey that plot in his project are sold…

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

….)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  ACIT Vs Ramanbhai B. Patel (2008) 12 DTR 471 (Ahd) (Trib)  ACIT Vs Jorawar Singh M. Rathod (2005) 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd.) 34. So far as statement of partner Mr. Rajesh Pengawala is concerned. The ld. AR submits that in his statement was recorded on 06.01.2010 during the survey from copy of pages placed on record. Though the Assessing Officer recorded in the table that Rajesh Pengawala in his statement stated during the survey that plot in his project are sold…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

….)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  ACIT Vs Ramanbhai B. Patel (2008) 12 DTR 471 (Ahd) (Trib)  ACIT Vs Jorawar Singh M. Rathod (2005) 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd.) 34. So far as statement of partner Mr. Rajesh Pengawala is concerned. The ld. AR submits that in his statement was recorded on 06.01.2010 during the survey from copy of pages placed on record. Though the Assessing Officer recorded in the table that Rajesh Pengawala in his statement stated during the survey that plot in his project are sold…

RAJENDRAKUIMAR CHAMPALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIAT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5384/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ted from real estate activities. The learned AR in this regard has relied upon the following judgements :- a) ACIT vs. Harekrishna Exports - 34 CCH 048 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) b) ACIT V/s Dharam Pal Gulati-36 CCH 509 (ITAT Delhi) c) ACIT V/s Jorawar Singh M Rathod -94 TTJ 867 (ITAT, Ahmedabad) d) DCIT V/s M L Jain -96 TTJ 362. However, I would like to mention that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from these cases, inasmuch as the surrender made by the assessee is clearly co-relatable with the sources of undisclosed income, mode of its earning and the assets in which such income was invested. In fact, o…

ACIT v. Ramanbhai B. Patel (94 TTJ 867) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax