(i) Tidewater Marine International Inc. v. DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun

96 ITD 406Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#13084 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc. v. DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…verting the documentary evidence has treated the surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…dence has treated the 8 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1430/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…verting the documentary evidence has treated the surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…verting the documentary evidence has treated the surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…verting the documentary evidence has treated the surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…verting the documentary evidence has treated the surrendered income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the…

M/S. PADMINI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1002/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri K.N. Chary & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

…Fit for Publication ITA No- 1002/Del/2014 (AM) (JM) Padmini infrastructure Developers India Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1002/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/s Padmini Infrastructure DCIT, Developers India Ltd., Vs. Circle-14(1), LG-1 & 3, R-23, Nehru Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. PAN No: AAACP 3561 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, FCA and Shri Somil Agarwal, CA. Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHR…

SURYAPRAKSH G. AGARWAL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 22(3), NAVI MUMBAI

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

ITA 5779/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5779/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Suryaprakash G. The Acit, Circle 22(3), बनाम/ Agarwal, Mumbai Vs. Sunny Real Estate Consultants, Arenja Corner, Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-40 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 7894B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Dr P. Danial Shri Love Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Dr P. Danial
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…se of the assessment proceedings. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the additions itself made by the AO are bad in law and therefore on the basis of such additions, no penalty can be levied. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench in 96 ITD 406. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that it is open to the assessee to set up/raise the question of validity of assessment in the appeal against the levy of penalty. The Ld. Counsel continued stating that all the advances pertained to earlier years therefore additions made on account of failure by assessee to file confirmations is not justifiable an…

(i) Tidewater Marine International Inc. v. DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun (96 ITD 406) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax