Banshidhar Onkarmall v. CIT

3 ITR 353Reported decision#24305 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Banshidhar Onkarmall v. CIT

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Paresh Construction & Foundations P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6850/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…see made detailed submissions. Considering the available material, he held that one of the Directors of the company had offered Rs.30,00,000/- for taxation,that AO was justified in making the addition of Rs.2.78 lakhs. He referred to the cases of Hotel Samrat[3 ITR 353] and K.C.K Deboo [313 ITR 186] and dismissed the ground of appeal,raised by the assessee. 5.2.Before us,the AR submitted that during the course of survey proceedings the assessee had stated that creditors approximately of Rs.30,00,000/- were appearing in the books of accounts wherein the amount was due, that the figure of Rs.30,00,000/- was not ba…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5682/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…ted by the Ld. CIT(A). In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar 284 ITR 497 and upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Banshidhar Onkarmall v. CIT 3 ITR 353. 2.8. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and submissions made by both the sides before us. The impugned documents on the basis of which addition has been made was admittedly found at the premises of the assessee wherein certain facts were clearly mentioned which have not been denied or controverted so far. These facts are that…

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Giriraj Developers, Navi Mumbai

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 957/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)

…ted by the Ld. CIT(A). In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar 284 ITR 497 and upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Banshidhar Onkarmall v. CIT 3 ITR 353. 2.8. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and submissions made by both the sides before us. The impugned documents on the basis of which addition has been made was admittedly found at the premises of the assessee wherein certain facts were clearly mentioned which have not been denied or controverted so far. These facts are that…