CIT v. Rao Raja Hanut Singh

252 ITR 528High Court2001#8933 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Rao Raja Hanut Singh

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1531/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2022-23 cuke Oliria Foods and Beverages Income Tax Officer, Vs. Limited, A-130(H) First Floor, Ward 1(2), Jaipur Road No. 9D VKI Area, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACC09015G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf; dlnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 82/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Kailash Chand Yadav cuke Income Tax Officer, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Vs. Ward-1(1), Jaipur. Sheoshinghpura, Akoda, Phulera, Jaipur-303338. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACXPY 1162 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.L. Podd…

DEVENDERSINGH SAJUBHAI JADEJA,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 464/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 464/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Devendersingh Sajubhai Jadeja, Income Tax Officer, C/101, Baroda Skyz, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Adarsh Duplex, Vadodara. Gorwa Road, Vadodara-390022. Pan: Aelpj2883F

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, CIT.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…late authority or the Tribunal was not as a matter of right and in case a discretion was exercised in accordance with law there was no occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001] 252 ITR 528 (Raj.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also affirmed these decisions in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 173 (Guj.)- After considering the report of the AO and the submissions of the AR, the additional evidence is not accepted as the same is in violation of Rule 46A. Moreover, the appellant has filed such incomplete Addl.…

HL MALHOTRA AND COMPANY PVT. LTD.

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/211/2020HC Delhi22 Dec 2020
Section 254(2)Section 260A

…nditions precedent mentioned in Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules are not attracted to the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rao Raja Hanut Singh, 2001 252 ITR 528 Raj, wherein it has been held as under:- “Thus, the only question which at best can be said to be raised for consideration before this court is whether for allowance or disallowance of a request for additional evidence to be produced before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is a question of law. Having given our thoughtful cons…

CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Perey Pareliwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 56

…er, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal (sic-refusing) to entertain the additional evidence sought to be produced by the Revenue at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 30. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh (252 ITR 528) (Raj) held as under: “Production of additional evidence at the appellate stage is not matter of right to the litigating party but within the discretion of the Court which is to be exercised judiciously…… Secondly, even if it be a question of law, if answer is evident or is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court, such question need not be…

NERKA CHEMICALS P. LTD,GUJRAT vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 38, MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…all accepted, it would tantamount to permitting the Revenue to do something indirectly which they are precluded from doing directly. The ld. Sr. Counsel also relied on the decision in CIT Vs Kamal C Mahboobani (214ITR 15) (Bom), CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanumant Singh 252 ITR 528(Raj). The ld. Sr. Counsel prayed that the additional evidence filed by the revenue at this stage in the form of various paper books are not relevant for deciding the issue before this Tribunal. 27. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the various documents sought to be relied as additional evidence and the…

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR
Section 115BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 279/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke M/s. Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt Ltd. The ACIT Vs. G-1/100, RIICO Area Circle Jhunjhunu Jhunjhunu LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAICS 3950 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

SHRI DHARMENDRASINH R.VAGHELA,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,, BARODA

In the result, ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2444/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2444/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Dharmendrasinh R. Vaghela The Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Prop: Narendra Roadlines, 1, Ward-2(1), Baroda - Vs. Gokulnagar, Nandesari, 390007 Baroda-391340 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHPV2633D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri Saurabh Singh,…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner Of A-25, Midc Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaips1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, Ars Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. ShlokaFor Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst. Commissioner of A-25, MIDC Street No. 3, Income Tax-20(3), Vs. Marol Industrial Area, Mumbai. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. PAN No. AAIPS1238A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Mohan& Ms. Shloka Shah, ARs Revenue by : Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR Date of Hearing : 16/03/2018…

SHARAD KUMAR SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7652/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia
Section 17(2)(iv)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘J’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Ravish Sood, JM ITA No.7652/Mum/2014 : Asst.Year 2006-2007 Shri Sharad Kumar Saraf Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax बनाम/ A-25, MIDC Street No.3 Circle 20(3) Marol Industrial Area, Andheri (East) Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai – 400 093. PAN : AAIPS1238A. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Shri Vijay Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Arju Garodia सुनवाई क" तार"ख / घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21.06.2017 Date of Pronouncement :…

RAJESH KUMAR TODWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 543/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Shri Rajesh Kumar Todwal, Income Tax Officer, Vs. S/o- Shri Badri Narain Todwal, Ward 1(1), Shop No. 116, Gopal Ji Ka Rasta, Jaipur. Johri Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACDPT 4271 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma & Rajnikant Jhada (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS (P ) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 10, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3917/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) Acit -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, Hdil Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian,DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…t additional evidences : a) CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179(Gau. HC) b) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 01 (Bom). c) Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT 302 ITR 173(Guj HC) d) Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867(All HC) e) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanutsingh 252 ITR 528(Raj.HC) 9. The learned CIT(A) adjudicated ground No. 1 whereby it was agitated by the assessee company that the AO has erred in stating that the activities shown by the assessee company were actually part of the activities of the main group company i.e. Rochem Separation Systems (I) P. Ltd. which has been transferred/recorded in the name of the…