CIT v. Om Prakash Jain

322 ITR 362High Court2010#17653 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Om Prakash Jain

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru vs. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…al No. 828/JP/16, dated 30-6- 2017]; *CIT* v. *Ashok Kumar Soni* [2008] 166 Taxman 371/[2007] 291 ITR 172 (Raj.); *Kailahben Manharlal Chokshi* v. *CIT* [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.); *CIT* v. *Omprakash K. Jain* [2009] 178 Taxman 179/[2010] 322 ITR 362 (Bom.); *Mehta Parikh & Co.* v. *CIT* [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); *Shree Ganesh Trading Co.* v. *CIT* [2013] 30 taxmann.com 170/214 Taxman 262/257 CTR 159 (Jhar.); *CIT* v. *Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd.* [2015] 55 taxmann.com 176/230 Taxman 187 (A.P.) *Chetnaben J. Shah* v. *ITO* [2017] 79 taxmann.com 328/[2016] 288 CTR 579 (Guj.) - **10.** We h…

Avinash Narayan Sutar, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the three appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1029/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1029, 1030 & 1031/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Avinash Narayan Sutar Vs. Ito – 28(1)(2) Plot No. 582, Laxmi Tower No.6, Vashi Niwas, Sector -1, Station, Navi Mumbai- Shiravana, Nerul, Navi 400703. Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent Ito – 28(1)(2) Vs. Avinash Narayan Sutar Tower No.6, Vashi Plot No. 582, Laxmi Station, Navi Mumbai- Niwas, Sector -1, 400703. Shiravana, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arsps9036R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyan.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ate the claim which cannot be ignored and no disallowance is ITA No. 1029, 1030, 1031& 1321/Mum/2020 M/s. Avinash Narayan Sutar, Mumbai. warranted. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs. Om Prakash Jain (2010) 322 ITR 362 (Bom.) placed at Page Nos. 275-278 of the Paperbook-II. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Court has held as under: "6. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. In the first instance apart from the retracted statement of 21.1.2004, subsequent statement made on 25.3.2004 has not been co…

Saroj Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7288/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…submitted same set of documents and argued that so much documentary evidences were submitted but nothing has been proved otherwise. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Jain (2010) 322 ITR 362 (Bom). He argued that the genuineness of transaction is to be accepted on account of supporting document/ evidences furnished by the assessee before the authorities below and accordingly purchased of shares of Jaykay Dee Industries and Robinson Worldwide cannot be treated as bogus. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee further explained that t…

Saroj Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7287/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…submitted same set of documents and argued that so much documentary evidences were submitted but nothing has been proved otherwise. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Jain (2010) 322 ITR 362 (Bom). He argued that the genuineness of transaction is to be accepted on account of supporting document/ evidences furnished by the assessee before the authorities below and accordingly purchased of shares of Jaykay Dee Industries and Robinson Worldwide cannot be treated as bogus. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee further explained that t…

Saroj Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7286/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…submitted same set of documents and argued that so much documentary evidences were submitted but nothing has been proved otherwise. Learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. Om Prakash Jain (2010) 322 ITR 362 (Bom). He argued that the genuineness of transaction is to be accepted on account of supporting document/ evidences furnished by the assessee before the authorities below and accordingly purchased of shares of Jaykay Dee Industries and Robinson Worldwide cannot be treated as bogus. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee further explained that t…

CIT v. Om Prakash Jain (322 ITR 362) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax