CIT v. Nikunj Eximp

216 Taxmann.com 171High Court2013#1054 most cited

What is CIT v. Nikunj Eximp authority for?

The Assessing Officer must consider additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A and cannot reject it without proper appreciation of the facts, especially when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nikunj Eximp · Rule 46A · additional evidence · CIT(A) · Assessing Officer · sufficient cause · remand report · natural justice

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Nikunj Eximp

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh M Parmar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4172/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soodi.T.A. No.4172/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) I.T.A. No.4173/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Ito-31(2)(3), Mr. Mukesh M. Parmar, R.No.704, C-11, Pratyakshakar B-16, Shreyas Industrial Vs. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Estate, Nr. Jay Coach, Mumbai – 400 051. Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaepp2846H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.4172/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) I.T.A. No.4173/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ ITO-31(2)(3), Mr. Mukesh M. Parmar, R.No.704, C-11, Pratyakshakar B-16, Shreyas Industrial Vs. Bhavan, BKC, Bandra (E), Estate, Nr. Jay Coach, Mumbai – 400 051. Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AAEPP2846H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak, DR प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent…

Niloufer Mustafa Nalawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5769/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Raoबनाम/ Mrs. Nilofer Mustafa Nalawala Income Tax Officer- (Proprietress Of Liberty 21(3)(4), Vs. Graphics), R.No. 2104, Summer Mumbai. Park, 4, Seth Motisha Lane Cross, Byculla, Mumbai-400027. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Abmpn8288Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER बनाम/ Mrs. Nilofer Mustafa Nalawala Income Tax Officer- (Proprietress of Liberty 21(3)(4), Vs. Graphics), R.No. 2104, Summer Mumbai. Park, 4, Seth Motisha Lane Cross, Byculla, Mumbai-400027. स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : ABMPN8288Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nitesh Joshi प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09.02.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNA…