Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT

267 CTR 519High Court2014#15498 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT OSD (Central)-1, Ratlam vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, Ratlam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 292B

…ITA No.220/Ind/2021 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, (Central)-1, Indore. 63, Chowmukhi Pool, Ratlam – 457 001. [PAN – ACFPK 5786 Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur Date of hearing : 19.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUD…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3531/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…awing any adverse inference, the documentary evidence ‘specially the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of…

Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…awing any adverse inference, the documentary evidence ‘specially the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3137/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…awing any adverse inference, the documentary evidence ‘specially the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3136/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…awing any adverse inference, the documentary evidence ‘specially the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of…

M/S. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…awing any adverse inference, the documentary evidence ‘specially the appraisal report' may be shown to the appellant. In furtherance to its arguments against the impugned order, the appellant placed reliance on the cases of Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd v CIT 267 CTR 519 (All); and DCIT v Pioneer Marbles & Interiors P Ltd 144 TTJ 663 (Kol). As regards Rs 8,00,000, the AR stated that, though this sum had not been included in the return of the appellant, it was part of the disclosure and tax thereon, amounting to Rs 2,40,000 also stood paid, since excess tax had been paid by the appellant while filing the return of…

Crossing Infrastructure P Ltd. v. CIT (267 CTR 519) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax