B.D. Gupta & Sons. v. ITO

70 SOT 16Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#21288 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 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 B.D. Gupta & Sons. 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

…Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Neela Productions [1997] 223 ITR 504 (Kerala HC); vii. The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of B.D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO [2015] 70 SOT 16 (DELHI Trib.); 56 The ld. CIT-DR objected to the contentions raised by the ld. AR by stating that this legal issue i.e. the seized documents do not belong to the assessee, has not been raised by him before the lower authorities nor did he raise it before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. 57 The ld. CIT-DR also submitted that the assessee in his…

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

…Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Neela Productions [1997] 223 ITR 504 (Kerala HC); vii. The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of B.D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO [2015] 70 SOT 16 (DELHI Trib.); 56 The ld. CIT-DR objected to the contentions raised by the ld. AR by stating that this legal issue i.e. the seized documents do not belong to the assessee, has not been raised by him before the lower authorities nor did he raise it before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. 57 The ld. CIT-DR also submitted that the assessee in his…

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

…Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Neela Productions [1997] 223 ITR 504 (Kerala HC); vii. The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of B.D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO [2015] 70 SOT 16 (DELHI Trib.); 56 The ld. CIT-DR objected to the contentions raised by the ld. AR by stating that this legal issue i.e. the seized documents do not belong to the assessee, has not been raised by him before the lower authorities nor did he raise it before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. 57 The ld. CIT-DR also submitted that the assessee in his…

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

…Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Abdul Rasheed [1999] 240 ITR 402 (Madras HC); vi. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Neela Productions [1997] 223 ITR 504 (Kerala HC); vii. The Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in the case of B.D. Gupta & Sons v. ITO [2015] 70 SOT 16 (DELHI Trib.); 56 The ld. CIT-DR objected to the contentions raised by the ld. AR by stating that this legal issue i.e. the seized documents do not belong to the assessee, has not been raised by him before the lower authorities nor did he raise it before the Hon’ble Settlement Commission. 57 The ld. CIT-DR also submitted that the assessee in his…

B.D. Gupta & Sons. v. ITO (70 SOT 16) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax