Goldmine Investments v. DCIT

237 CTR 196Reported decision2010#23850 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 358,351 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Goldmine Investments v. DCIT

Shivlal, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 2768/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars required for completion of assessment, are barred by limitation. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Goldmine Investments v. DCIT (2010) 237 CTR 196. 5. On the contrary, Shri V. Nandakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 was completed by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.12.2006. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) found that 20% deduction has to be given from the value of the c…

Shivlal, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 2767/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars required for completion of assessment, are barred by limitation. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Goldmine Investments v. DCIT (2010) 237 CTR 196. 5. On the contrary, Shri V. Nandakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 was completed by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.12.2006. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) found that 20% deduction has to be given from the value of the c…

Shivlal, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment

ITA 2766/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sh. T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. Nandakumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…negligence on the part of the assessee in furnishing the particulars required for completion of assessment, are barred by limitation. The Ld. representative has also placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court in Goldmine Investments v. DCIT (2010) 237 CTR 196. 5. On the contrary, Shri V. Nandakumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 was completed by the Assessing Officer by an order dated 29.12.2006. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) found that 20% deduction has to be given from the value of the c…

Goldmine Investments v. DCIT (237 CTR 196) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax