CIT v. MS Aggarwal (HUF)

45 DTR 290High Court2010#15930 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. MS Aggarwal (HUF)

ANILA RASIKLAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7290/MUM/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Anila Rasiklal DCIT-CC 3(1), Mehta, Room No.1924, Flat No.8, 4th Floor, 19th Floor, Vs. New Usha Kiran CHS, Air India Bldg, 150, Midhanukar Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400021 PAN: AAOPM2668L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Vivek Sunil Mehta, Dy. CIT-CC-3(1), Flat No.8, 4th Floor, Cent. Range-3, Ushakiran Co. Op. Hsg. Room No.1924, Vs. Soc, 19th Floor, 150, ML Dhanukar Marg, Air India Bldg,…

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.182/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT(Central)-II Shri Nitin Agrawal, Bhopal 1, Mount View Hills, Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal Vs. ( Revenue ) (Respondent ) PAN:ADUPA9906C Assessment Year 2014-15 ACIT(Central)-II M/s S.V. Infra Developers, Bhopal Premier Orchard, Opp. MBHRC, Karnond By Pass Vs. Road, Bhopal ( Revenue ) (Respondent ) PAN:ADUPA9906C Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Respondent by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT…

SH. MAHENDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…d at different occasion and inherited, it was the case of the assessee that jewellery to extend not required to be seized , may be treated as explained and quoted several case laws: CIT vs. Ms Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) DTR 169 (MR) GITvs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy. CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha vs. Asstt. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (visakha) Smt. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT TTJ 974 (Jab) 5.1 I have considered the submissions of the assessee and the impugned assessment order. The Ld AO had proceeded to…

LATE SMT. KAILASH AGRAWAL THROUGH LH MR. SUSHIL AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 426/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Late Smt. Kailash Agrawal Dcit-1 Through Lh Mr. Sudhir बनाम/ Kumar Agrawal, Bhopal Vs. E-2/4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aarpa4436B Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3 Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Dated 28.02.2017 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 31.01.2014 By Dcit(Central) Bhopal. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Smt. Kailash Agrawal DCIT-1 Through LH Mr. Sudhir बनाम/ Kumar Agrawal, Bhopal Vs. E-2/4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: AARPA4436B Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT- DR Date of Hearing: 23.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 06.02.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal by Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the…

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 81/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…found during the course of search. Hence there should be no question of any addition on account of jewellery. Case laws on which reliance is made by the AR as follows:. CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that…

MR. MAHINDER KUMAR VALECHA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in view of the findings given in respect of assessee’s appeal

ITA 6396/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-6396/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2010-11)

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 69

…found during the course of search. Hence there should be no question of any addition on account of jewellery. Case laws on which reliance is made by the AR as follows:. CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP) CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.) Rajendra C. Shah vs. Jt. CIT (2007) 158 Taxman 170 (Mum.) Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.) Smt. Bommana Swama Rekha Vs. Asst. CIT 95 TTJ 885 (Visakha) Sint. Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab) 6. The AR further submitted as relates to Ground No.3 that Ld.AO made addition of Rs.88,900/- on the ground that…

CIT v. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (45 DTR 290) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax