(i) Pirani v. ACIT

257 ITR 94High Court#24037 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69Section 69A

Judgments citing (i) Pirani v. ACIT

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…The the books of account, then section 69 &69A is not applicable. The the books of account, then section 69 &69A is not applicable. The relevant cases on the above mentioned points are: relevant cases on the above mentioned points are: 1. Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) 2. Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) 3. Jagjit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) jit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) 4. Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition 7.7. In view of the…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…nts and details of expenses incurred towards construction produced before them, therefore section 69 is not applicable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT against unexplained investment under the…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…nts and details of expenses incurred towards construction produced before them, therefore section 69 is not applicable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT against unexplained investment under the…

(i) Pirani v. ACIT (257 ITR 94) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax