ITO v. T. Abdul Majeed

169 ITR 440High Court1988#3491 most cited
34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. T. Abdul Majeed

MADHAN HUF,TRICHY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 975/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 975/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit/Acit, Madhan Huf, V. Central Circle 1, 284 Lawsons Road, Trichy. Cantonment, Trichy – 600 001. [Pan: Aaqhm-0598-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 147Section 69A

…arty of the transaction by claiming that he was not allowed to cross-examine will not be appropriate. 6.3.6 The presumption laid-down u/s 292C of the Act is a rebuttable presumption (Hon'ble Kerala High court in the case of ITO-vs- T. Abdul Majeed reported in 169 ITR 440). In the present case, the Appellant has. not rebutted the signature and the contents contained in the Sale Agreement. In addition, the Appellant has admitted about the receipt of 4.5 Crore in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act and also the A.R. in the submission made has admitted about the fact, about the receipt of advance of Rs.4.5 Cror…

Showing 120 of 34 · Page 1 of 2