CIT v. Surajmat Sardarmal

204 CTR 344High Court2006#19810 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing CIT v. Surajmat Sardarmal

Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3332/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…ITR 133 (Kr) has held that burden of proving that the ostensible owner of property is not the real owner but is only a benamidar for another is on the taxing authorities. 5.9.10. Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surajmat Sardarmal (2006) 204 CTR 344 (Raj) held that assessee, a commission agent, having admittedly paid the profit arising from, certain transactions made by it on behalf of a party to said and accounted for the Page 36 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss,…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 3228/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…ITR 133 (Kr) has held that burden of proving that the ostensible owner of property is not the real owner but is only a benamidar for another is on the taxing authorities. 5.9.10. Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surajmat Sardarmal (2006) 204 CTR 344 (Raj) held that assessee, a commission agent, having admittedly paid the profit arising from, certain transactions made by it on behalf of a party to said and accounted for the Page 36 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss,…

Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2288/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…ITR 133 (Kr) has held that burden of proving that the ostensible owner of property is not the real owner but is only a benamidar for another is on the taxing authorities. 5.9.10. Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surajmat Sardarmal (2006) 204 CTR 344 (Raj) held that assessee, a commission agent, having admittedly paid the profit arising from, certain transactions made by it on behalf of a party to said and accounted for the Page 36 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss,…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Networth Stock Broking Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…ITR 133 (Kr) has held that burden of proving that the ostensible owner of property is not the real owner but is only a benamidar for another is on the taxing authorities. 5.9.10. Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Surajmat Sardarmal (2006) 204 CTR 344 (Raj) held that assessee, a commission agent, having admittedly paid the profit arising from, certain transactions made by it on behalf of a party to said and accounted for the Page 36 of 43 ITA No.3228,2268,3332&2288/Mum/2012 Networth Stock Broking Ltd.; 2007-08 & 2008-09 commission received by it without making claim for any speculation loss,…

CIT v. Surajmat Sardarmal (204 CTR 344) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax