Ajay Gupta v. CIT

114 Taxmann.com 577High Court2020#5593 most cited
21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Ajay Gupta v. CIT

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. ARVINDA NANDAGOPAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyana Sundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ajay Gupta vs. CIT reported in 185 DTR 217 following his earlier decision in CIT vs. Shadiram Ganga Prasad reported in (2010) UPTC 840. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SM Agarwal reported in 293 ITR 43 held that no adverse inference can be drawn unless the author of the document was examined. 9.3 In the light of the above settled position of law, in our considered opi…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. ARVINDA NANDAGOPAL, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyana Sundaram reported in 294 ITR 49 and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary reported in 305 ITR 245 and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ajay Gupta vs. CIT reported in 185 DTR 217 following his earlier decision in CIT vs. Shadiram Ganga Prasad reported in (2010) UPTC 840. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. SM Agarwal reported in 293 ITR 43 held that no adverse inference can be drawn unless the author of the document was examined. 9.3 In the light of the above settled position of law, in our considered opi…

Showing 120 of 21 · Page 1 of 2

Ajay Gupta v. CIT (114 Taxmann.com 577) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax