ITR 79/36 Taxman 270\n(Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT

208 ITR 196High Court1994#19836 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 139Section 251Section 106Section 115BBESection 118Section 120Section 122

Issues it is cited on

companysection 14indiabusinessdocument

Judgments citing ITR 79/36 Taxman 270\n(Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT

Jypore Manufacturing Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…mar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270 (Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D. Jewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa [1985] 156 ITR 105/23 Taxman 568 (Raj.) and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). In the above referred cases mainly the question was involved under section 52(2) for reopening the case under section 147A/147B of the Act a…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…mar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270 (Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D. Jewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa [1985] 156 ITR 105/23 Taxman 568 (Raj.) and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). In the above referred cases mainly the question was involved under section 52(2) for reopening the case under section 147A/147B of the Act a…

J.D. Sons Steel Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takiyar, Sr.D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 148(2)Section 68

…as not advanced any loan to any person during the relevant period - subsequent information is definite, specified and reliable. Sufficiency of reasons for formation of belief is not for the court to judge. Reassessment notices are valid. [Applied/followed in- 208 ITR 196 (RAJ) : 208 ITR 266 (DEL): 209 ITR 01 (BOM) :209 ITR 135(BOM) : Assam Forest Products (P) Ltd. - Vs.-CIT : 211 ITR 447 (SC): 214ITR 669 (RAJ) : 221ITR 538 (SC) :226 ITR 352 (6UH): 237ITR 549 (BOM):248 ITR 493 (P&H) :ITO - VS- Selected Dalurband Coal Co.Pvt. Ltd. 217ITR 597 (SC) :253 ITR 83 (DEL) 257 ITR 481 (Guj)] 12. And reliance is placed on Ho…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing and Celling Vs DCIT, System Pvt. Ltd., C/o Bhati Central Circle-II, Wadhwa & Co., CAs, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near MCF Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, NIT Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7152F Assessee by : Sh. K. C. Singhal, AR Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.01.2016 of ld. CI…

ITR 79/36 Taxman 270\n(Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT (208 ITR 196) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax