(Hira Bai v. CIT

4 ITR 95High Court1936#14148 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing (Hira Bai v. CIT

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contr…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contr…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s cannot be considered as ingenuine/sham and, therefore, the sale proceeds of such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contr…

DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri D.C. Kothari (CIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 512/JP/15 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke The DCIT, Circle-2, M/s Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jaipur. 513’ Sin Moon Chambers, Plot No. S-4, Kalwad Scheme, Near Ajmer Flyover, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.: AAECP9897M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrhdh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vks…

ACIT 17(2), Mumbai vs. Varsha P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4489/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaina C I T - 17(2) Smt. Varsha P. Shah Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor 234/26, 2Nd Floor, Om Niwas 1 Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel Kartak Road, Wadala Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400031 Pan - Aaqps4783G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar SoniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjai Parikh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 44A

…Shah b) Umachanaran Shah & Bros. Vs. C1T (1959) 37 1TR 271 (SC) - As assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law. c) Hirabai D. Desai & Sons Vs. CIT (1936) 4 ITR 95 (Bom) - there is no presumption of bad faith against an assessee unless there be sufficient material on record to establish and sustain bad faith. It cannot be presumed that an assessee was selling by short weighs. (6) Your honour would further appreciate that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of C1T Vs. Lucky Laboratories Ltd. (2006) 284…

(Hira Bai v. CIT (4 ITR 95) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax