Hamid Khan v. ITO

60 SOT 146Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#18192 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Hamid Khan v. ITO

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 254(1)Section 44A

…nder section 44AD would be taken as an estimation of income. To support her submission, Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon following case law:  Nishikant T Patne vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 540 (Pune-Trib.)/[2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune-Trib.)[15-07- 2013]  Commissioner of Income-tax-XII vs. Subodh Gupta [2015] 54 taxmann.com 343 (Delhi)/[2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Del)[09-12-2014]  Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)* [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bom)/[2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bom)/[2017] 297 CETR 614 (Bom)[25-04-2016]  Brij Bhushan Lal…

BIJJALA ESWARA RAO,KHAMMAM vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KHAMMAM

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P.Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T.Chaitanya Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.J.Prabhakar Anand, DR
Section 44A

…rifiable nature of account against the net profit of the assessee at 6.3%, the Hon'ble Tribunal came to the conclusion that the net profit at 8% would be reasonable. b) In the case of Nishikant T. Patne v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3 [2013] 60 SOT 146/36 taxmann.com 540 (Pune - Trib), the Hon'ble Tribunal estimated the income of civil contractor at 8% of gross receipts holding that section 44AD of the Act, 1961, which incorporates 8% being presumptive rate as the legislative intent, against income determined at 15% of gross receipts by the Assessing Officer. c) In the case of Commissioner of In…

PRAKASH RAVANRATAN JADDHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…[2015] 61 taxmann.com 17 (Karnataka) ii) CIT v. Earth Tech Engineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4…

PRAKASH RAVANRATAN JADDHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2210/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…[2015] 61 taxmann.com 17 (Karnataka) ii) CIT v. Earth Tech Engineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4…

PRAKASH RAVANRATAN JADDHAV,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2209/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…[2015] 61 taxmann.com 17 (Karnataka) ii) CIT v. Earth Tech Engineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4…

Hamid Khan v. ITO (60 SOT 146) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax