(i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani

297 CTR 204High Court2017#11444 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1a)section 158basection 158b(b)section 113section 158bb(1)section 158bbpenalty under section 270asection 271aabsection 158bcnon application of mindsection 41(1)creditworthiness of the creditor

Judgments citing (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 119/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 117/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 116/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd., Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 115/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P Ltd, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Nagpur

ITA 114/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

M/S Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Bilaspur vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur

ITA 113/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…office (in the statement of Sandeep Agrawal under section 131 dated 29/07/2019, vide Question No.14). The learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:– (i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom HC); (ii) CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017) 297 CTR 204 (Bom HC); (iii) DCIT v. SNJ Distillers P Ltd. (2020) 208 TTJ 968 (Chen-Trib); (iv) ACIT v. Vibgyor Net Connections (2024) 228 TTJ 1 (Chen-Trib). 96. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed on record. The first contention of the learned A.R. on the issue that without…

Taruna Kataria, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 584/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mrs. Taruna Kataria, The Ito-19(2)(2), 404, Bule Heaven, Nehru Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Acgpk 7391 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bhavesh R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. B.K. Bagchi, Sr. DR
Section 68

…decision in the case of beneficiary. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of beneficiary. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision in the case of Mrs. Taruna Kataria 9 CIT vs Lavanya Land Pvt Ltd reported in CIT vs Lavanya Land Pvt Ltd reported in 297 CTR 204 297 CTR 204 (Bombay), wherein it is held that in wherein it is held that in absence of the material to show absence of the material to show that huge cash transferred transferred from one side to another from one side to another, addition cannot be sustained. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the cannot be sustained. The Ld. Counsel further…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…te of specific request, ld. AO did not examine the persons who, according to the ld. AO, had received loans from the assessee through Ramesh Manihar Group. 64. It was submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR 204(Bom.) (HC) held that if the entries on loose sheet of paper, found during search, are not corroborated by any other evidence, no addition can be made. Similarly, in another case of Aarti Colonizers Company, certain incriminating material in the form of data stored in electronic medium was found in search conducted on the partners of the assessee…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…te of specific request, ld. AO did not examine the persons who, according to the ld. AO, had received loans from the assessee through Ramesh Manihar Group. 64. It was submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR 204(Bom.) (HC) held that if the entries on loose sheet of paper, found during search, are not corroborated by any other evidence, no addition can be made. Similarly, in another case of Aarti Colonizers Company, certain incriminating material in the form of data stored in electronic medium was found in search conducted on the partners of the assessee…

(i) PCIT v. Umesh Ishrani (297 CTR 204) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax