CIT v. Shree Ram Jaiswal

226 ITR 235High Court1997#23748 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Ram Jaiswal

Prasanna Kantilal Mehta, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1049/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Avadesh Kumar &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…bmitted that if any addition was warranted, the same could have been made only in the year of payment i.e., A.Y. 2009-10 and not in A.Y. 2010-11. He also placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shree Ram Jaiswal (1997) 226 ITR 235 (All). He therefore submitted that the addition be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition on account of unexplained investment in property. AO had noted that assessee had purchased…

Prasanna Kantilal Mehta, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1048/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Avadesh Kumar &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…bmitted that if any addition was warranted, the same could have been made only in the year of payment i.e., A.Y. 2009-10 and not in A.Y. 2010-11. He also placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shree Ram Jaiswal (1997) 226 ITR 235 (All). He therefore submitted that the addition be deleted. Ld.D.R. on the other hand supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 15. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition on account of unexplained investment in property. AO had noted that assessee had purchased…

Manoj Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 24(2) Erstwhile DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1593/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmanoj Patel, 314B,Samartha Aagan Ii Off Kl Walawalkar Road, Andheri West, Mumbai 400053 ------- Appellant

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 69

…sus ACIT [2009] 117 ITD 241 (Mumbai), decision of Gujarat High Court in Ushakant N Patel Versus CIT (282 ITR 553) (Gujarat), Rajasthan High Court in Roopchand Gandhi Versus CIT (216 CTR 273) (Rajasthan) Allahabad High Court in Shri Ram Jaiswal Versus CIT (226 ITR 235). The ld AR also relied upon the decision of jurisdictional High Court in Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholder Private limited Versus CIT (349 ITR 336 Bombay). 5. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessing officer during the 5 Manoj Patel assessment proceeding asked the as…

CIT v. Shree Ram Jaiswal (226 ITR 235) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax