C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT v. K. Jayakumar

296 ITR 348High Court#6161 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat creditaccumulated profitssection 158bdsection 80icshell companysection 142(2a)section 158bbsection 2(22)retracted statement

Judgments citing C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT v. K. Jayakumar

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 857/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…ronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos. 1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 856/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 845/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 844/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…ncements on this issue: :\n\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\n\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\n\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n\n49. The Ld. Couns…

SCOTT EDIL ADVANCE RESEARCH LABORATORIES AND EDUCATION LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 843/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 833/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 832/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 153D

…ronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos. 1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SCOTT EDIL PHARMACIA LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 829/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153A

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 732/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 731/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…ronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos. 1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 730/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 729/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 728/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SHRI BALRAM KRISHAN,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 726/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 583/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

MAXPORT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 582/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

DCIT, CC 1, CHANDIGARH , CHANDIGARH vs. SANJEEV AGGARWAL , CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the revenue are treated as dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , CHANDIGARH

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…

SANJEEV AGGARWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 480/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…pronouncements on this issue: :\na) Smt. Kamini Sharma, Solan vs. ITO, ITA Nos.1365 to 1369 of 2010\n(Chandigarh ITAT),\nb) C.S. Daniel vs. DCIT, 220 TAXMAN 336 (Kerala HC),\nc) CIT vs. K. Jayakumar, 216 TAXMAN 166 (Madras HC), and\nd) CIT vs. D. Subramanian, 296 ITR 348 (Chennai HC)\n48. Further, the ld. Counsel for the assessee also contended that the difference in\nreport of DVO and as per books was less than 10% and therefore, the addition u/s 69B\nwas not sustainable as per the judicial precedents laid down by Hon’ble J&K HC in\nHonest Group Of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit, 123 Taxman 0464.\n49. The Ld. Counsel f…