DCIT v. Adolf Patric Pinto

97 ITD 333Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#16261 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Adolf Patric Pinto

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5325/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

Sh. Sanjay Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 5024/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3170/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3167/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3162/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3158/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…er. Therefore, the order u/s 132(3) was invalid in view of Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Sandhya Naik (supra). Similar view has been taken by the tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Adolf Patric Pinto 100 ITD 191 (Mum), Sarb Consulate Marine Products 97 ITD 333(Del). In the case of V. L. S. Finance Ltd. Vs CIT 289 ITR 286 (Del), a search warrant was issued and search was conducted on 22/6/98. However, due to voluminous record, search had to be conducted again and again till 5/8/98 when the last panchnama was prepared. The block assessment remained pending till 29/6/2000 when order for special audit u/s 1…

DCIT v. Adolf Patric Pinto (97 ITD 333) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax