(i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT v. Subhash Chandra Gupta

105 DTR 295High Court2014#21878 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Judgments citing (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT v. Subhash Chandra Gupta

DCIT vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3211/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…bmitted that the assessing authority cannot refer the matter to the DVO u/s 142A(1) of the IT Act without first rejecting the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not reject…

DCIT vs. Parmarth Iron Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2370/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…bmitted that the assessing authority cannot refer the matter to the DVO u/s 142A(1) of the IT Act without first rejecting the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not reject…

Parmarth Iron (P) Ltd vs. ACIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above and both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1992/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142ASection 154Section 68

…bmitted that the assessing authority cannot refer the matter to the DVO u/s 142A(1) of the IT Act without first rejecting the books of account:- (i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta (2014) 105 DTR 295 (All); (iii) CIT & Ors. Vs. Asha Chaurasia & Ors. (2017) 98 CCH 85 (All); (iv) Nirpal Singh vs. CIT (2013) 359 ITR 398 (P&H); (v) Pr. CIT vs. Sanjay Hiralal Thakkar (2016) 97 CCH 168 (Guj); and (vi) CIT vs. Vijaykumar D. Gupta (2014) 365 ITR 470 (Guj). 9. He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has not reject…

(i) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society (2011) 339 ITR 588 (All); (ii) CIT v. Subhash Chandra Gupta (105 DTR 295) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax