Badri Prasad Om Prakash v. CIT (Raj)

163 ITR 487High Court1987#23056 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing Badri Prasad Om Prakash v. CIT (Raj)

LATHA C.MOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3046/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. P. Muthushankar, JCIT

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…see’s explanation that the quantum admitted in the revised return is an estimate to buy peace with the department etc is untenable. Therefore, we find merit in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) based on the case laws relied on by him viz S.R. Arulpraksam Vs ITO 163 ITR 487(Mad) , Ravi & Co. vs ACIT 271 ITR 280(Mad) , CIT vs Krishna & Co., 120 ITR 144(Mad) etc. On the above facts and circumstances, the case laws relied on by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of this case and hence, the corresponding grounds of the assessee fail. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on…

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…in the following judgments:- > Dayabhai Girdharbai Vs CIT (80m) 32 ITR 677 > CIT Vs Haji P. Mohammed (Ker) 132 ITR 623 > Mahavir Metal Works Vs CIT (P&H) ~ > Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs CIT (Raj) 163 ITR 440 > S.R. Arulprakasam Vs Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (Mad) 163 ITR 487 > F.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (Gauhati) 102 ITR 408 > CIT Vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (Mad) 110 ITR 602 > Ravi & Co. Vs ACIT (Mad) 271 ITR 286 5.3 It is an obligatory duty cast upon income derived from any source under various heads and indicate the income under each head, which is chargeable to income-tax, after making the permissible deductions. Dis…

R.VASUKI,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 899/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mrs. Veni Raj, Jt. CITFor Respondent: 03.08.2017

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…follows a discovery and, in fact, an admission by the Managing Director of the company as to the share applications being unexplained. The law in the matter is well-settled, viz. Ravi & Co. v. Asst. CIT [2004] 271 ITR 286 (Mad); S.R.Arulprakasam v. ITO [1987] 163 ITR 487 (Mad); CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad); Ayyasami Nadar & Bros. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 565 (Mad), to cite some. The assessee was, accordingly, bound to explain the additional income per her ‘revised return’ or, per contra, the omission of the said disclosure per her original return, satisfying the conditions of Explanation…