Income Tax Officer v. Prem Kumar Jindal

27 SOT 228Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#24264 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 11 Section 12 Section 12A Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

Judgments citing Income Tax Officer v. Prem Kumar Jindal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE,PUNE, PUNE vs. SHREE WARANA VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL , WARNANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 987/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 80G

…upport thereof, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Pravir Polymers Private Limited Vs. ITO in Writ petition No. 2440 Of 2023 (Bom.); ii. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works Vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All.); iii. ITO Vs. Prem Kumar Jindal (2009) 27 SOT 228 (ITAT). 7. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the submissions made by the assessee before him. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee holds a valid certificate of registration u/s 12 of the Act since the year 2003. The assessee is also having a valid registration certificate u/s 80G of the Act. Ref…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. STAUFF INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

…placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati); ii. Haji Lal Mohd. Biri Works Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 275 ITR 496 (Allahabad); iii. Income Tax Officer Vs. Prem Kumar Jindal, 27 SOT 228 (Chandigarh). A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10 4. On the other hand Shri Nikhil Pathak appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing activities as well as trading of hydraulic equipments/components. The ld. AR pointed that in the TP study though it may not have been prominently mentioned about the manufacturin…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. STAUFF INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 669/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma