CIT v. Vatika Construction (P) Ltd.

45 Taxmann.com 471High Court2014#25034 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vatika Construction (P) Ltd.

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 530/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Vision Jewellers The DCIT C/o R.K. Dhandia, 22, Moti Doongri Road, Vs. Circle-1 MootiDoongri Circle, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACFV 4559 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Reven…

M/S. Prahalad Finance & Capital (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5992/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI Assessment Year: 2006-07 Prahalad Finance & Capital (P) Ltd., vs. DCIT, C/o. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Range-23, Chamber No. 206-07, Ansal “Satyam”, New Delhi. RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. (PAN: AAACP2619K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Department by: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 04 .02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 31 :03.2016 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Upholding the penalty of Rs.31,269 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by t…

Inderprastha Construction Co., Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6562/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.S.Negi, Sr.D.R

Section 271Section 271(1)

…uld not substantiate its claim for expenses. The percentage of profit adopted by the A.O. is an estimate. 5.1. On these facts, we are applying the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Construction Pvt.Ltd. (2014) reported in 45 Taxmann.com 471 (Del) wherein it was held as follows. “14. In the present case, assessee’s cash payments were concededly not the amount which was disallowed, they had no co relation to what could not be established, and were disallowable. Further, the judicial record would show that when the AO decided to initiate penalty proceedings, he had no material t…