Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO

164 ITD 255Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#16897 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 245c(1)section 23(4)section 142(3)section 4(1)section 193section 196section 245csection 127(2)section 271aaasettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 124(3)

Judgments citing Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ome must be taxed in the hands of the person who has earned it: i. The Hon’ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Pradeep Agencies v. ITO [2007] 18 SOT 12 (DELHI)(SB); ii. The Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 255 (Mumbai) dated 02.09.2015; iii. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Murugesa Naicker Mansion [1999] 104 Taxman 563 (Madras HC); iv. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v SMSL-UANRCL (JV) [2015] 372 ITR 429 (Bombay HC); v. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. Th…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ome must be taxed in the hands of the person who has earned it: i. The Hon’ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Pradeep Agencies v. ITO [2007] 18 SOT 12 (DELHI)(SB); ii. The Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 255 (Mumbai) dated 02.09.2015; iii. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Murugesa Naicker Mansion [1999] 104 Taxman 563 (Madras HC); iv. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v SMSL-UANRCL (JV) [2015] 372 ITR 429 (Bombay HC); v. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. Th…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ome must be taxed in the hands of the person who has earned it: i. The Hon’ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Pradeep Agencies v. ITO [2007] 18 SOT 12 (DELHI)(SB); ii. The Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 255 (Mumbai) dated 02.09.2015; iii. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Murugesa Naicker Mansion [1999] 104 Taxman 563 (Madras HC); iv. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v SMSL-UANRCL (JV) [2015] 372 ITR 429 (Bombay HC); v. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. Th…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ome must be taxed in the hands of the person who has earned it: i. The Hon’ble Special Bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of Pradeep Agencies v. ITO [2007] 18 SOT 12 (DELHI)(SB); ii. The Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO [2017] 164 ITD 255 (Mumbai) dated 02.09.2015; iii. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Murugesa Naicker Mansion [1999] 104 Taxman 563 (Madras HC); iv. The Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v SMSL-UANRCL (JV) [2015] 372 ITR 429 (Bombay HC); v. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. Th…

Ramesh Chander Bhasin, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

ITA 161/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh Dahiya, Sr. D.R
Section 54ESection 54F

….T. Act and as such, A.O. was not justified in rejecting the claim of exemption under section 54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. Learned Counsel for the Assessee in support of his contention relied upon the following decisions : 01. Ashwin C Jariwala vs., ITO [2017] 164 ITD 255 [Mum- ITAT]. 02. Amitkumar Ambalal Shah vs., ITO [2015] 68 SOT 251 [Ahd.-Trib.] 03. Elegant Infraworld P. Ltd., vs., ITO [ITA.No.4334/Del./2018] [Del.-ITAT]. 04. CIT vs., A. Suresh Rao [2014] 41 taxmann.com 475 [Karnataka]. 05. Amit Gupta vs., ACIT [2015] 43 ITR (T) 427 [Del.-ITAT] 06. Ashok G. Chauhan vs., ACIT [2019] 176 ITD 717 [Mum.-ITAT] 07.…

Ashwin C Jariwala Pradeep v. ITO (164 ITD 255) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax