CIT v. Multiplex

378 ITR 350Reported decision#24739 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplex

Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur vs. M/S Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust, Jaipur

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 960/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jan 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Add.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ilure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. 13. In this regard, the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. 378 ITR 350 are relevant wherein it was held that: “24. In our view, the question whether the Assessee could have been stated to disclosed fully and truly all material facts have to be examined in the light of facts of each case and also the reasons that led the AO to believe that income of an Assessee ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 15 M/s Apollo A…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4573/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…not what is disclosed by the assessee but a camouflage transaction. It is also interesting to note in the para number 16 of the order of the honourable High Court where in it relied upon the decision of CIT vs Multiplex trading and industrial company limited 378 ITR 350 and stated that where in cases where the primary facts as asserted by the assessee for framing of assessment are subsequently discovered as false, the reopening of assessment may be justified. In the present case, the primary facts stated by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings are found to be false. Further, the AO has also mentio…

Brijbasi Education and Welfarew Society, Mathura vs. Addl.CIT, Range-1, Ghaziabad

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4572/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…not what is disclosed by the assessee but a camouflage transaction. It is also interesting to note in the para number 16 of the order of the honourable High Court where in it relied upon the decision of CIT vs Multiplex trading and industrial company limited 378 ITR 350 and stated that where in cases where the primary facts as asserted by the assessee for framing of assessment are subsequently discovered as false, the reopening of assessment may be justified. In the present case, the primary facts stated by the assessee in the original assessment proceedings are found to be false. Further, the AO has also mentio…