(Central)-1, New Delhi v. Ved Prakash Choudhary

218 CTR 99High Court2008#11289 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 132(4A)Section 234BSection 292CSection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 153(c)(1)abatement of assessmentsection 131(1)section 153(c)section 153a(1)(b)statement under section 132(4)section 153c(1)section 31section 132(4a)interest under section 234asection 153a(1)satisfaction note

Judgments citing (Central)-1, New Delhi v. Ved Prakash Choudhary

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 887/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

Kasiredday Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 886/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 884/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 883/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 882/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, AR &For Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 259Section 69

…43.7. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax, (Central)-1, New Delhi vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2008] reported in 169 Taxman 130 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 ITR 245 (Delhi)/[2008] 218 CTR 99 (Delhi)[19-02-2008] is also apposite. The Hon’ble Court has held that: “In the instant case, the assessee had stated that in fact there was no transfer of money between him and 'R' and 'M'. On the other hand, 'R' and 'M' had denied receipt of any money from the assessee. In the fact of those denials, there ought to have been corroborative evidenc…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 86 :: - Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) - CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) - Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (IT Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (ITA No. 172/Lkw/2023) - B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT (ITA No. 14/Bang/2019) - Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 3820-38…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 86 :: - Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) - CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) - Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (IT Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (ITA No. 172/Lkw/2023) - B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT (ITA No. 14/Bang/2019) - Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 3820-38…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…M/s. Lalithaa Jewellery Mart Ltd. :: 86 :: - Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 367 ITR 112 (Del HC) - CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) CIT v. Ved Prakash Choudhary [2011] 218 CTR 99 (Del HC) - Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (IT Mahendra Lalka v. DCIT (ITA No. 172/Lkw/2023) - B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT B.S. Yediyurappa v. ACIT (ITA No. 14/Bang/2019) - Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT Anand Jaikumar Jain v. ACIT (ITA Nos. 3820-38…

(Central)-1, New Delhi v. Ved Prakash Choudhary (218 CTR 99) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax