CIT, M.P. (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) (2) Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vadhela (DECD.) (through LRs) v. ITO

353 ITR 146High Court2013#24626 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT, M.P. (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) (2) Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vadhela (DECD.) (through LRs) v. ITO

ITO, Ward-2(2)(3), Surat vs. Maheshchand G. Patel (HUF), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 20/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Maheshchandra G. Patel (Huf), Ward-2(2)(3), 22, Vrajbhumi, Tirumala Society, In Vs. Surat. Front Of Balaji Nagar, Piplod, Surat. Pan No. Aajhm 2315 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 292C

…ore the order passed by the Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue relied upon the following decisions: (1) Chuharmal Vs CIT, M.P. (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) (2) Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vadhela (DECD.) (through LRs) Vs ITO (2013) 353 ITR 146 (Guj) (3) H.M. Constructions Vs ACIT (2021) 431 ITR 196 (Kar) 14 ITO Vs Maheshchandra G. Patel (HUF) (4) DCIT Vs Shivram Consultants India (P) Ltd. (2023) 147 taxmann.com 457 (Delhi Trib) 12. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee should have been asse…

Mangla Modi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1706/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Mangla Modi Ito-20(2)(2) A-103, Highway Land, Mumbai Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan No. Aahpm4596L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Satish R. Modi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Satish R. Modi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…nt of Mr. Choksi was recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search. In respect of statements recorded under the provisions of section 132(4), it has been held in Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. ITO (2013) 351 ITR 146 (Del), Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vaghela vs. ITO, (2013) 353 ITR 146 (Guj); Shourya Smt. Mangla Modi 9 Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2013) 359 ITR 523 (Del) that once there was a clear admission, voluntarily made, on the part of the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence for the Revenue. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ke…

Rajanikant C. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja (Acountant Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

…he purchase of Flat by the assessee is duly established with the help of sufficient evidence found in own possession of the assessee. We find support of our view from the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bhanu Vijaysingh M Vaghela vs ITO 353 ITR 146 (Guj) wherein addition was made on the basis of loose paper found during the course of search which clearly indicated that amount of loan was given by the said assessee which could not be proved by the assessee from disclosed sources. The addition was deleted by Ld. CIT(A), but the same was upheld by the Tribunal. Hon’ble High Court held that th…