Anil Gupta v. Assessing Officer

96 TTJ 798Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#21685 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 69ASection 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Judgments citing Anil Gupta v. Assessing Officer

Sarita Gupta, Alwar vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 662/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…ed under section 147 that there was escapement of income from tax on account of the failure of the assessee from disclosing the full and correct particulars, I have no hesitation in quashing the notice on reassessment.” Anil Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer (2005) 96 TTJ 798 (Del.) (Trib.) 15 Sarita Gupta vs. PCIT AO having initiated proceedings under s. 154 proposing to tax a particular income and pending said proceedings, initiating proceedings under s. 147 for taxing the same income, proceedings under s. 147 suffered from change of opinion, hence bad in law and so also assessment in pursuance thereof. Sushil Kumar…

G.S. Dream Home LLP, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 24/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 69A

…on 8 M/S. G.S. DREAM HOME LLP, AJMER VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER account of the failure of the assessee from disclosing the full and correct particulars, I have no hesitation in quashing the notice on reassessment.” Anil Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer (2005) 96 TTJ 798 (Del.) (Trib.) AO having initiated proceedings under s. 154 proposing to tax a particular income and pending said proceedings, initiating proceedings under s. 147 for taxing the same income, proceedings under s. 147 suffered from change of opinion, hence bad in law and so also assessment in pursuance thereof. Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT 2016 ITL 3…

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…T Vs. E.I.D. Parry Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad.) (HC) ii. Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Ors. (2010) 322 ITR 369 (Cal.) (HC) iii. Sterilite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT & Anr. (2011) 79 CCH 453 (Mad.) (HC) iv. Anil Gupta Vs. Assessing Officer (2005) 96 TTJ 798 (Del.) (Trib.) v. Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT 2016 ITL 3825 (Del.) (Trib.) 3. It may be noted that notice u/s 263 (PB 24-25) was issued for the reason that AO has accepted the explanation of assessee without examining the issue in totality as there are no details about total income declared by M/s Oswal Cables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Oswal Electrical Con…

Ram Kishore Rathore, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 53(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 308/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, Vs. Acit, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S Rra Taxindia New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Pan:Aaapr4260P) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 308/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Ram Kishore Rathore, vs. ACIT, Circle-53(1), C/O M/S RRA TAXINDIA New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (PAN:AAAPR4260P) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the Order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:- “1. That having regard to…

Anil Gupta v. Assessing Officer (96 TTJ 798) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax