Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT

288 ITR 278High Court2007#4836 most cited

What is Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT authority for?

An application for the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, must include reasons explaining the purpose of the evidence and the justification for not producing it earlier. Failure to do so can lead to the rejection of the application.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT · Rule 46A · additional evidence · reasons for admission · reasons for non-production · CIT(A) order

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 68Section 143(2)Section 28(iv)Section 37(1)Section 40A(7)Section 41(1)Section 46A

Issues it is cited on

section 40a(7)section 28(iv)section 41(1)section 41admission of additional evidencerule 46areasoned ordercomplete scrutinygenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)section 37(1)section 69c

Judgments citing Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar v. CIT

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1854/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…b and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in appeal before us. Ld. Authorised 11. Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower au…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1853/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…b and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in appeal before us. Ld. Authorised 11. Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower au…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1852/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…b and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in appeal before us. Ld. Authorised 11. Representative strongly assailing the orders of the lower au…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Superior Crafts

The appeals are dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arises for

ITA/244/2009HC Delhi06 Mar 2012
Section 142Section 260A

…d and there was fall in G.P. rate as held by the Assessing Officer, rejection of books of accounts is justified and proper. In this regard, she relies upon decision of Allahabad High Court in Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax [2007] 288 ITR 278 (All) and this Court in Action 2012:DHC:1630-DB ITA Nos. 244/2009, 547/2011, 548/2011 & 615/2011 Page 32 of 44 Electricals Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (2002) 258 ITR 188 (Del). 29. In Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar (supra), a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court referred to Secti…