Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons.

377 ITR 215High Court2015#10601 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons.

GUNTI ASHWIN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2365/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

GUNTI NAVEEN KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2364/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

GUNTI ANIL KUMAR ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

GUNTI PRASAD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2362/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

GUNTI PRASAD ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2361/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

GUNTI PRASAD (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2360/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…(SC) 6. Brij Mohan Vs. CIT, 120 ITR 001, (SC) 7. B.N. Sharma Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 442, (SC) 8. Engineering Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT Vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 001 (SC) 10. Pr. CIT Vs. Control & Switchgear Contractors Ltd., 377 ITR 215 (Delhi HC) 11. Vipan Khanna Vs. CIT, 255 ITR 220 (P&H HC) :- 11 -: ITA Nos. 2360 to 2365/Hyd/18 Gunti Prasad and others, Hyd. 16. The ld. DR, on the other relied on the orders of revenue authorities and objecting to the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee, submitted that since in this case specific document containing incriminating eviden…

SH. TARUN ARORA,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4989/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv., MsFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

…d in (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC). 2. CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). 3. CIT vs. Compro Technologies P. Ltd. reported in (2015) 232 Taxman 392 (Delhi). 4. PCIT vs. Control & Switchgear contractors Ltd. reported in (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Delhi). ALP Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT. (ITAT) (DEL)” 5. 10. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR pointed out that here in this case the assessee had filed a return of income on 28.11.2014 and the revision of the audit report was carried out on 26.08.2016. Thus, there was a huge gap between the original return of income and revised audit report and th…

TARAI FOODS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. THE ACIT.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1239/DEL/2009[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2018AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 1996-97] M/S Taral Foods Limited Vs. The A.C.I.T 13, Hanuman Road Circle – 16(1) Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Smt. Premlata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…t to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.” 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Control & Swtichgear Contractors Ltd 377 ITR 215 has considered a similar issue and the relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “Court finds that in the present case the order of the CIT(A) explaining why Section 271(l)(c) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case merits no interference. The issue that arose for determination in the quantum appeal does appe…

DCIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

…ACIT vs A.H.Wheeler, 132 ITD 34 (All), CIT vs S.P.K. Steels, 270 ITR 156 (MP), CIT vs Harparshad & Co. Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 53 (Del), CIT vs New Sorathia Engineering Co. vs CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj), Pr. CIT vs Control and Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 215 (Del), wherein the decision in CIT vs. Zoom Communication P Ltd. (2010) 327 ITR 510 (Del) was distinguished and considered CIT vs Escorts Finance Ltd. (2010) 328 ITR 44 (Del) and 29 Wadhwa Constructions MAD Data P. Ltd. vs CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). The assessee also gets shelter from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DCIT Nepa Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann…

SOMA PAPERS AND INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2839/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2002-03
For Appellant: Dr. K. Sivaram & Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan-DR
Section 143(3)Section 224Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/2839/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2002-03 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Soma Papers & Industries Ltd. DCIT, Circle 2(3) Indian Mercantile Chambers Mumbai. 3rd Floor, 14 R Kamani Marg Vs.…

Impex (P) Ltd. Vs. DD Sharma, 244 ITR 247 (Delhi HC) 9. CIT v. Onkar Saran & Sons. (377 ITR 215) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax