CIT v. Bhavani Shankar Vyas

311 ITR 8High Court2009#14040 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 271AAC(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Bhavani Shankar Vyas

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

…assessee or where such account was kept and the assessee relied on the valuation report of the registered valuer. Now, we come to a judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Bhawani Shankar Vyas, [(2009) 311 ITR 8 (Uttarakhand). ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 26 of 28 The question before the High Court was whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that without rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer, ignoring the retrospective…

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3211/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…rejected before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A and ignoring the decision in case of Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT - 253 CTR 98 (AP) and the decision rendered by the division bench of Uttrakhand High Court in Case of CIT Vs. Bhavani Shankar Vyas - 311 ITR 8 (Uttrakhand)." 14.1 The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by observing as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, stated that question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Luck…

DCIT vs. PARMARTH IRON PVT. LTD,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2370/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…rejected before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A and ignoring the decision in case of Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT - 253 CTR 98 (AP) and the decision rendered by the division bench of Uttrakhand High Court in Case of CIT Vs. Bhavani Shankar Vyas - 311 ITR 8 (Uttrakhand)." 14.1 The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by observing as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, stated that question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Luck…

PARMARTH IRON (P) LTD vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…rejected before referring to the D.V.O. u/s 142A and ignoring the decision in case of Bharathi Cement Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT - 253 CTR 98 (AP) and the decision rendered by the division bench of Uttrakhand High Court in Case of CIT Vs. Bhavani Shankar Vyas - 311 ITR 8 (Uttrakhand)." 14.1 The Hon'ble High Court decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by observing as under:- “4. Learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, stated that question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by judgment dated 25.01.2017 passed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Luck…

SH. SANJEEV PARASHAR,ALIGARH vs. I.T.O., WARD-1, ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 230/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri Sanjeev Parashar Vs..Ito, Ward -1, A-6, Mahavir Park, Extension, Aligarh. Aligarh. Panno.Ajopp3902F (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 142ASection 69Section 69ASection 69B

…e Assessing Officer has to record that he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. 11. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of the Uttara-khand High Court in CTT v. Bhawani Shankar Vyas [2009] 311 ITR 8 (Uttarakhand), wherein the court was dealing with the question as to whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that without rejecting the books of account, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer, ignoring the retrospective effect of the provisions of section 142A of…

HOTEL SURYA VILAS PALACE,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 738/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt.Roshanta Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 142Section 142ASection 142A(1)Section 145(3)Section 56(2)Section 69Section 69B

…h Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar (1993) 200 ITR 788 ( Raj) and in the case of CIT v. Hotel Joshi (200) 242 ITR 478 ( Raj) as the learned CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon’ble Uttaranchal High Court in the case of CIT & Anr. V. Bhawani Shankar Vyas (2009) 311 ITR 8 (Uttarakhand). It was further submitted that in fact no books of account were rejected before referring the matter to the DVO under M/s Hotel Surya Vilas Palace Vs. ACIT, Alwar. section 142A of the Act. It was further submitted that the decision of Hon’ble High Court has been reversed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CI…

ITO, RISHIKESH vs. M/S. M.L. CREATIONS, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4009/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Gupta, CA & Sh. P.SFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. MEENA, SR. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4009/DEL/2016 A.Y. : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, M/S M.L. CREATIONS, PLOT NO. A-15, 17 & 18, MINI WARD 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH VS. INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, O/O CISF BUILDING IDPL, RANIPOKHARI, CAMPUS, VEERABHADRA, THE. – RISHIKESH, DISTT. RISHIKESH, DISTT. DEHRADUN DEHRADUN (PAN: AAPFM5910L) AND C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT 4435/7, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Department b…

CIT v. Bhavani Shankar Vyas (311 ITR 8) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax