CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2008) 318 ITR 376 (Del); (b) CIT v. Creative & Printing (P) Ltd.

26 SOT 95Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#17431 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 2(22)(e)Section 250 Section 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2008) 318 ITR 376 (Del); (b) CIT v. Creative & Printing (P) Ltd.

Raj Hemant Shroff, Mumbai vs. ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 986/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff Acit-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai Vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. Pan: Aacps 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH ‘D’, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Hemant Shroff ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai 11, Vallabh Apartments, Bhulabhai vs Desai Road Breach Candy, Mumbai-400036. PAN: AACPS 5875 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the o…

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Gupta, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal of the is allowed

ITA 274/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Sumit Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 14(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

…ectio0n 2(22)(e) of the Act. To support his contention, he relied upon the CBDT Circular No. 19/2017 dated 12.6.2017 relating to settled view on Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, trade advances – reg. and also relied upon the case law Sunil Sethi (2009) 26 SOT 95 (Del). 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and filed the written submissions citing therein the various case laws. The case laws cited by the Ld. DR in the written submissions are reproduced hereunder :- “Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg. In the above case, assesse claim that the transaction…

Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5521/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…received on account of ‘imprest’ which have been shown in the books of accounts of both the parties and full particulars have been disclosed in the audited accounts and relied upon the order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Sunil Sethi vs DCIT 26 SOT 95 (ITAT-Del-2010) & Sunil Chopra vs DCIT 26 SOT 95 DEL, on the proposition that for ‘imprest’ account, addition need not be made. He has, therefore, submitted that the assessee offered explanation, therefore, penalty is not leviable. He has also relied upon the order of the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of ITO vs Quixotic Healthcare in ITA N…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4806/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR

…pany has acquired by getting property on rent. He placed reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT v. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd. (2008) 318 ITR 376 (Del); (b) CIT vs. Creative & Printing (P) Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 416 (Del) (c) Sunil Sethi vs. DCIT (2008) 26 SOT 95 (Del). 33. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record, we are in agreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the consideration in question received by the assessee is not covered by section 2(22)(e) of the Act. This common ground raised by the Revenue for AYs 2008-09 & 2009-10 is, therefore, rejected. CO Nos.266 to 269/…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Suresh Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross

ITA 4802/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nirupama Kotru, CIT, DR