Chand Prakash Vij v. CIT

315 ITR 251High Court#24435 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Chand Prakash Vij v. CIT

Chander Pal Saini, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Time Of Hearing.”

…h should direct the Assessing Officer to make the addition in the hands of father of the assessee. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: (i) Shashi Garg vs. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 150 (Delhi High Court) (ii) Chand Prakash Vij vs. CIT reported in 315 ITR 251 (P&H) 5. In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit from his father and in para- 6 & 7 it was submitted that the same was deposited in the joint loan account. The issue raised by the Ld DR are not the issues raised by the lower authorities. He further brought to our notice page 59 of the Paper Book wherein S…

Shri Ravi Kewaltani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bhilai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 278/RPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Ravi Kewaltani, Ito, Ward- 2(1), Bombay Footwear, G.E. Road, Bhilai (Cg). Vs. Pachari Para, Durg (Cg).

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rituparan Namdeo, DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…confirmed the additions made on account of cash deposits by holding that there was no proof that it was the same cash withdrawn and deposited in the bank accounts. The hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Chand Prakash Vij vs. CIT reported in 315 ITR 251 on the issue of cash deposits on account of sale of residential property held that the story of sale of residential property and cash deposited from it in the bank account remained unproved. The decisions of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sudhir K Sharma (HUF) vs. CIT -III, Ludhiana reported in 69 taxmann.com 219 and of the hon'ble Calcutt…

Sri Basudev Panigrahi, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 138/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan , DR
Section 131

…not paid Rs.34,14,400/-, the assessee was required to bring additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. This was not done by the assessee. This Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 view is supported by the decision in the case of Chand Prakash Vij vs CIT, 315 ITR 251 (P&H). hence, he confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Before me, ld A.R. reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities. Ld A.R. also produced before me a copy of valuation report dated 22.6.2011 which was made by Er. A.K.Samantray, in respect of Plot No.47/628 situated at Laxmivihar, PS: Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar, D…

Chand Prakash Vij v. CIT (315 ITR 251) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax