CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff v. CIT

340 ITR 393High Court2012#11529 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff v. CIT

Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) vs. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…ote(s) leading to the issuing of the warrant of authorisation against the respondent assessee were placed before the High Court. As it would appear from the impugned order [Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd. v. DG of Income Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1610 : (2012) 340 ITR 393] the contents thereof were exhaustively reproduced by the High Court. The said satisfaction note(s) have also been placed before us. A perusal of the file containing the satisfaction note(s) indicate that on 8-6-2009 the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Nagpur had prepared an elaborate note containing several reasons as to…

M/S.Balaji Bullion & Commodities (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-40, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1291/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Porwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 153ASection 153BSection 37Section 68

…the block assessment order could not be sustained and was, accordingly, quashed.” Further, ratio laid down in CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 114 (Jhar.), Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd. vs DGIT (2012) 340 ITR 393 (Bom.) and CIT vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All.) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80(SC), CIT vs Ms. Rohini Valia 289 ITR 328 (Del.), Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs ACIT 120 ITD 301 (Del.), Jayantilal Damjibhai & Ors. Vs DIT (2008) 219 CTR 26, also support…

Prakash P. Mali, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(4), Range -4, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 2181/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 132Section 133Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 88

…for the assessee filed written submissions and also relied on following decisions viz., (i) CIT vs. Smt Shaila Agarwal, 346 ITR 130; (ii) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd vs. DCIT [18 ITR 106] (Mum.) (SB); (iii) Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd Ors vs. DGIT & Ors. [340 ITR 393 (Bom)] (iv) Shri Govind Agarwal v. ACIT being ITA No: 3389/Mum/2011 dated 10.01.2014; (v) SKS Ispat and Power Limited vs. DCIT l (vi) Sinhgad Technical Education Society vs. ACIT [2011] 140 TTJ 233 and others. Mr. Prakash P. Mali 10. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO and the CIT (A). Further, on the legal propositions, Ld DR…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…the block assessment order could not be sustained and was, accordingly, quashed.” Further, ratio laid down in CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 114 (Jhar.), Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd. vs DGIT (2012) 340 ITR 393 (Bom.) and CIT vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All.) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80(SC), CIT vs Ms. Rohini Valia 289 ITR 328 (Del.), Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs ACIT 120 ITD 301 (Del.), Jayantilal Damjibhai & Ors. Vs DIT (2008) 219 CTR 26, also support…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…the block assessment order could not be sustained and was, accordingly, quashed.” Further, ratio laid down in CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 114 (Jhar.), Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd. vs DGIT (2012) 340 ITR 393 (Bom.) and CIT vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All.) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80(SC), CIT vs Ms. Rohini Valia 289 ITR 328 (Del.), Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs ACIT 120 ITD 301 (Del.), Jayantilal Damjibhai & Ors. Vs DIT (2008) 219 CTR 26, also support…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…the block assessment order could not be sustained and was, accordingly, quashed.” Further, ratio laid down in CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 114 (Jhar.), Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd. vs DGIT (2012) 340 ITR 393 (Bom.) and CIT vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All.) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80(SC), CIT vs Ms. Rohini Valia 289 ITR 328 (Del.), Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs ACIT 120 ITD 301 (Del.), Jayantilal Damjibhai & Ors. Vs DIT (2008) 219 CTR 26, also support…

Balaji Universal Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…the block assessment order could not be sustained and was, accordingly, quashed.” Further, ratio laid down in CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 114 (Jhar.), Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd. vs DGIT (2012) 340 ITR 393 (Bom.) and CIT vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All.) supports the case of the assessee. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs Ajit Jain 260 ITR 80(SC), CIT vs Ms. Rohini Valia 289 ITR 328 (Del.), Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs ACIT 120 ITD 301 (Del.), Jayantilal Damjibhai & Ors. Vs DIT (2008) 219 CTR 26, also support…

Samarthmal P. Mali, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD I) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.1730/M/2013 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Mr. Samrathmal P. Mali, Acit (Osd-I), 27, 2Nd Floor, Mantri Corner Central Range 7, Vs. Bldg., Opp. Swaraj Restaurant, 413, Aayakar Bhavan, Phadke Chowk, Gokhale Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 025. Mumbai – 400 020. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahpm6079Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 234A

…for the assessee filed written submissions and also relied on following decisions viz., (i) CIT vs. Smt Shaila Agarwal, 346 ITR 130; (ii) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd vs. DCIT [18 ITR 106] (Mum.) (SB); (iii) Spacewood Furnishers Pvt Ltd Ors vs. DGIT & Ors. [340 ITR 393 (Bom)] (iv) Shri Govind Agarwal v. ACIT being ITA No: 3389/Mum/2011 dated 10.01.2014; (v) SKS Ispat and Power Limited vs. DCIT l (vi) Sinhgad Technical Education Society vs. ACIT [2011] 140 TTJ 233 and others. 10. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the order of the AO and the CIT (A). Further, on the legal propositions, Ld DR has nothing to cont…

Vimal Kumar Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 17 & 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3094/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 132Section 153A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “F” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.3094/M/2013 (AY: 2002-2003) I.T.A. No.3095/M/2013 (AY: 2004-2005) I.T.A. No.3096/M/2013 (AY: 2009-2010) Shri Vimal Kumar Rathi, फनाभ/ DCIT, Central Circle 17 & 18, R.No.401, 4 th Floor, C/o. G.P. Mehta & Co, CAS, Vs. 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 212, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-20. Mumbai – 400 021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AABPR 3676 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. I.T.A. No.2823/M/2013…

CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.), Abhay Kumar Shroff v. CIT (340 ITR 393) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax