CIT v. Smt. B.Saroja Devi

236 ITR 203Reported decision#23841 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. B.Saroja Devi

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2254/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…rs of income or concealed its income or any of the property was undisclosed property. This being the case, the imposition of penalty was not justified. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Smt. B.Saroja Devi [236 ITR 203] wherein Hon’ble court, on identical factual matrix, has held as under:- We have heard both the learned standing counsel for the Department as well as learned counsel for the respondent assessee. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupation of the property as Sadasivanagar, Bangalore. It was let out, only…

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2251/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…rs of income or concealed its income or any of the property was undisclosed property. This being the case, the imposition of penalty was not justified. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Smt. B.Saroja Devi [236 ITR 203] wherein Hon’ble court, on identical factual matrix, has held as under:- We have heard both the learned standing counsel for the Department as well as learned counsel for the respondent assessee. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupation of the property as Sadasivanagar, Bangalore. It was let out, only…

Shailesh S. Mody, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2250/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Deepak Tikeker, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.K.Chaturvedi, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…rs of income or concealed its income or any of the property was undisclosed property. This being the case, the imposition of penalty was not justified. Our view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Smt. B.Saroja Devi [236 ITR 203] wherein Hon’ble court, on identical factual matrix, has held as under:- We have heard both the learned standing counsel for the Department as well as learned counsel for the respondent assessee. The first item relates to a sum of Rs. 2,153 estimated as income from self-occupation of the property as Sadasivanagar, Bangalore. It was let out, only…

CIT v. Smt. B.Saroja Devi (236 ITR 203) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax