Harlal Maaulal v. CIT

147 ITR 11High Court1984#22605 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Harlal Maaulal v. CIT

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

ITA/8/2024HC Rajasthan13 Aug 2024

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

For Appellant: Mr. S. Rajeswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 69Section 69A

…sh as a source for subsequent cash deposit, particularly where the assessee admits to having deployed that cash for lending activities. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed as having no merit, as the ITAT has also granted relief to 1 (1984) 147 ITR 11 (MP) Page 8 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- on estimated cash-in-hand, which demonstrates judicious application of mind and fairness. He would finally submit that the findings of the ITAT are based on cogent reasoning, appreciation of material facts and settled legal principles under Sections 69A and 115BBE…

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7040/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 7039/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Smt. Poonam Gupta, Vs Dcit, Da/5, 1St Floor, Vikas Marg, Central Circle-4, Shakarpur, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aftpg3130M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 16Section 18Section 251(2)

…2011-12. He has relied on the decision of Patoa Bros Vs. CIT 133 1TR 672 (Gau) where it has been held that crucial date for the application of sec 69A is when the assessee became the owner of the asset. He also relied on the decision of Harlal Maaulal Vs. CIT 147 ITR 11 (MP). (iv) Ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the purchase as per the purchase bills except in respect of three purchase bill without verifying the facts from the jewelers by doing proper enquiry. He relied on the decision of Nathu Ram purchased 49 ITR 561 (All.)” ITA Nos.7039 & 7040/Del/2014 6 Poonam Gupta & Rajesh Kr. Gupta 8. The ld. CIT(A…

Smt. Poonam Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7039/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 7039/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Smt. Poonam Gupta, Vs Dcit, Da/5, 1St Floor, Vikas Marg, Central Circle-4, Shakarpur, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aftpg3130M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 16Section 18Section 251(2)

…2011-12. He has relied on the decision of Patoa Bros Vs. CIT 133 1TR 672 (Gau) where it has been held that crucial date for the application of sec 69A is when the assessee became the owner of the asset. He also relied on the decision of Harlal Maaulal Vs. CIT 147 ITR 11 (MP). (iv) Ld. Assessing Officer did not accept the purchase as per the purchase bills except in respect of three purchase bill without verifying the facts from the jewelers by doing proper enquiry. He relied on the decision of Nathu Ram purchased 49 ITR 561 (All.)” ITA Nos.7039 & 7040/Del/2014 6 Poonam Gupta & Rajesh Kr. Gupta 8. The ld. CIT(A…

Harlal Maaulal v. CIT (147 ITR 11) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax