CIT v. K Satyendra Kumar

232 ITR 360Supreme Court of India#15378 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 64surrender of incomechildsundry creditorssection 145(3)search assessmentdocuments seizedagricultural incomeundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 153section 153a

Judgments citing CIT v. K Satyendra Kumar

Pooja Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 6564/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

Om Prakash Bhatia & Sons, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 6563/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

Shri Om Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 3270/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

Shri Om Prakash Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 3269/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

Sh Om Prakash Bhatia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 1556/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

Sh Om Prakash Bhatia (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Om Prakash Bhatia (individual)

ITA 1555/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 64

…, HUF’s existence was doubted and accordingly gross profit addition was made on protective basis. 8.8. In this regard, it would be relevant to address the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K Satyendra Kumar reported in 232 ITR 360 (SC) which is as under:- 3. The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the High Court (see [1983] 140 ITR 840, 842) : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the status of the assessee was rightly determined as individual for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70?" 4. The High Court relied upon the foll…

CIT v. K Satyendra Kumar (232 ITR 360) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax