CIT v. Salek Chand

20 DTR 317Reported decision#17141 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Salek Chand

Virendra Prakash Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT (Th. VC)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153CSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 286/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Prakash Sharma 1 Hotel Mahindra, Kanti Nagar, Opp. Polo Victory, Bani Park, Jaipur बनाम DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax) Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGWPS7454C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Rajeev So…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by the assessee, assumes fatal consequences. Reassessment proceedings have been ini…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by the assessee, assumes fatal consequences. Reassessment proceedings have been ini…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by the assessee, assumes fatal consequences. Reassessment proceedings have been ini…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…are unsupported by any material. In this context, reference is invited to the following judicial pronouncements: i. Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT 301 ITR 134 ii. CIT v. Salek Chand 300 ITR 426 (All) iii. SMC Share Broker Ltd. 288 ITR345 (Del) iv. JMD Computers 20 DTR 317 15. Before concluding the Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95, wherein at page 98 has held as under: “This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by the assessee, assumes fatal consequences. Reassessment proceedings have been ini…

CIT v. Salek Chand (20 DTR 317) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax