CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.

227 ITR 345High Court1997#17342 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd.

MOHD. IMRAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 6741/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 44A

…ause to allow its admission at the appellate stage, especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage and had not been produced by him without any sufficient cause. Reliance is placed on the judgments CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (Raj) 227 ITR 345, Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT 4 (Bom.) 68 ITR 708, Jyotsna Suri vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61 ITD 139, A.K. Babu Khan vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757, DCIT vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT, Mum TM) 61 ITD 33, Ram Prasad Sharma vs. CIT (All) 119 ITR 867.” 7. The CIT(A) did not accept the evidence filed before him on the ground that the assessee failed to explain…

AMERICAN EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 American Education Trust, Acit-I(1) S.V. Road, Parekh Nagar, Mumbai. Vs. Behind Gokul Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai- 400067. Pan No. Aaata4303N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2018

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

…find that the valuation report filed by the assessee is quite relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue arising out of the 1st and 2nd ground of appeal. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In CIT v. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. (1997) 227 ITR 345, 349 (Raj.), in a similar case, it has been held that the only proper course for the Tribunal was to send the case back to the Income-tax authorities for taking evidence on record and pass order in accordance with law. In view of the above position of law, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the f…

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…e not followed and AO was not given any opportunity under clause (3) of the said Rule. Reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Vali Mohmed Ahamad Bhai (Guj.) 134 ITR 214 ACIT Vs. Mohar Singh (IT AT, Jd.) 32 DTR 497 CIT Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd, (Raj.) 227 ITR 345 Velji Deoraj & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 68 ITR 708 Jyotsna Suri Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61ITD 139 Page 3 of 34 A.K.Babu Khan Vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757 DCIT Vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT,Mum, TM) 61 ITD 33 Ramprasad Sharma Vs. CIT (All.)119 ITR 867 Dinesh B. Parikh Vs. CIT (Cal) 202 Taxman (Mag) 110 (6) That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/o…

MOHD HUSSAIN NOOR MOHD SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1932/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Jain

Section 143(3)Section 68

…issues involved in this case and if the said documents are not admitted as additional evidence, a grave injustice will be caused to the applicant/assessee. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court in CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 227 ITR 345(Raj), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati V. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) submitted that since the assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny the admission of crucial evidence for the reason that it was not produced before the authorities below. 4. The Ld. DR oppos…

SMT. CHETHNA GUPTA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P Georgesmt. Chethna Gupta, Maa Pita Nest, 124/5, 11Th Cross, 22Nd Main, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalroe-560070, … Appellant Pan:Ahwpg 7383 H Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal (DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 29Section 69

…ms made by assessee during the appellate proceedings since assessee had shown no reason why it could not appear before AO and furnish evidence. Relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Jaipur Smt.Chethna Gupta Page 6 of 9 Udyog Ltd. (227 ITR 345) and that of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT vs. SAS Educational Society (319 ITR 65), learned DR submitted that assessee once given sufficient opportunity by AO, could not be allowed to furnish new and fresh evidence before higher authorities. 7. I have perused the orders and heard rival submissions. Assessee had assailed the re-open…