CIT v. Sangmeswara Associates

345 ITR 396High Court2012#24587 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sangmeswara Associates

Arun Ravindranath Sawhney, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7192/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 7192/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Arun Ravindranath Sawhney The Dy. Commissioner Of 502, Daisylea Apartment, 17- Income Tax, Central Circle A Mount Pleasant Road, 3(4), Old Acit Central Vs. Mumbai-400 006 Circle 24& 26 Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aafps4688F

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Anadi Varma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…om 51 (Mumbai-Trib) 5. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2002) 83 ITD 286 (Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay) 7. ACIT vs. Dr. Nitin Laxmikant Lad, IN ITA No. 2241 to 2244/PN/2012 8. CIT Vs. Sangmeshwara Associate (2012) 345 ITR 396 (Kar) 9. S. Rajnish Vohra vs. DCIT ITA No. 516/Chd/2012 10. CIT vs. Mussadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 20 11. M/s Lakshmi Ring Travellers, ITA No. 2083 (Mds)/2011 12. CIT vs. Munish Iron Store (2003) 263 0484 (2004) 13. Mahendra Mital vs. ACiT (2011) 139 TTJ 513 (Mum) 14. Mrs. SArita Kaur Manjeet Singh Chopra V. ITO (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 360 (Pun…

M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…itial burden of finding some material to support the finding of concealment of income. ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 30 of 37 10.2 Burden of proof required is described by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangmeswara Associates (345 ITR 396) as follows: “36. In a situation where the assessee admits that a return which had been filed earlier did not disclose a true or full income, which is the case in the present situation, does not warrant proof or burden on the revenue to prove things, as it is well settled legal principle that any proof and manner of proof are all not required wh…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…itial burden of finding some material to support the finding of concealment of income. ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 30 of 37 10.2 Burden of proof required is described by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sangmeswara Associates (345 ITR 396) as follows: “36. In a situation where the assessee admits that a return which had been filed earlier did not disclose a true or full income, which is the case in the present situation, does not warrant proof or burden on the revenue to prove things, as it is well settled legal principle that any proof and manner of proof are all not required wh…

CIT v. Sangmeswara Associates (345 ITR 396) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax