How many judgments cite Jain Brothers v. Union of India?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite Jain Brothers v. Union of India (77 ITR 107), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jain Brothers v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 144B, Section 145(3), Section 69A.

Jain Brothers v. Union of India

77 ITR 107Supreme Court of India1970#1960 most cited

What is Jain Brothers v. Union of India authority for?

Income cannot generally be taxed twice, but this fundamental rule applies only where general words of taxation are interpreted. If the legislature distinctly and expressly enacts provisions allowing for double taxation, such taxation is permissible.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jain Brothers v. Union of India · 77 ITR 107 · Supreme Court · double taxation · income taxed twice · fundamental rule of taxation · express legislative provision · interpretation of tax statutes · Section 115BBE · Section 68

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 144B Section 145(3)Section 69A Section 132 Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66 annual letting value annual value section 158bc mercantile system of accounting section 260 section 260a rejection of books of account book profits best judgment assessment double taxation

Judgments citing Jain Brothers v. Union of India

SHRI BEERESHWAR CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MADABHAVI,BELAGAVI vs. ITO WARD-2, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI

ITA 487/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 487/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr Shivanand Halbhavi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80P(2)

…be purposive to quote that, ‘a penalty is levy of additional tax’ as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs Bikaji Dadabhai & Co.’ [1961, 42 ITR 123 (SC)] which their hon’ble lordships subsequently reiterated in ‘Jain Brothers Vs Union of India’ [1970, 77 ITR 107 (SC)]. In the light of aforestated judicial precedents, we are heedful to state that, the Ld. NFAC without first adjudicating the pending quantum appeal, that is to say without first determining the basic tax payable has proceeded to determine the ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 7 Shri Beereshwar Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.487/PAN/2025 AY:…

SURBHIT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…Supreme Court has observed\nthat "It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise\nexpressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. Similar view was\ntaken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jain Brothers and Others Vs.\nUnion of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and Mahaveer Kumar\nJain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax. Jaipur in Civil Appeal\nNo. 4166 of 2006.\n5.3 The AO has taken a reasonable view by allowing the claim of\nthe assessee to which the ld.PCIT does not concur with as he holds a\ndifferent view of the impugned issues. In this connection, reference is\nmade to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay Hi…

DCIT 42 1 1 , MUMBAI vs. PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT, MUMBAI

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

For Appellant: \nShri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

…Supreme Court has observed that \"It is a fundamental rule of law of\ntaxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed\ntwice. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jain\nBrothers and Others Vs. Union of India and Other 77 ITR 107 and\nMahaveer Kumar Jain Vs. Commissioner of income Tax. Jaipur in\nCivil Appeal No. 4166 of 2006.\nPage 15\nITA No. 2042/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nPratap Uttam Purohit\n37.\nFurther, it has also come on record that the assessee had paid payments\nto the following parties:\na. C. Mony (R.M.) Rs.67,500/-\nb. Mohammed Kurban Ali (RM.) Rs.47,004/-\nc.…

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 1092/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2Section 271ASection 69A

…Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice". Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under:- “6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax….. If any double taxation is involved, the Legisl…

DILIP MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, Ld. CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Singhania Vs. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 291 (SC) at 294 where Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “It is fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice (See also Jain Brothers Vs. Union of India (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC). The amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- was deposited in Bank A/c in the period prior to demonetization and in demonetization period only Rs. 20,00,000/- was deposited which was not undisclosed income but out of income already disclosed by assessee in A.Y. 2016-17 and thus there is no reason to hold by A.O. that if the demonetization was not declare…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the taxpayer unless the language of the statute is so compellingly certain that the court has no other alternative than to accept it.” 58 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani Hon’ble Apex court in case of Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), has held as under:- “ It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax….. If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature its…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…1 MS. PRIYANKA SURANA VS ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 102/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Priyanka Surana cuke The ITO Vs. 201, Sterling Apartment, B-6-B Ward 5 (1) Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPS 1109 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh v…

JT. CIT (OSD) - 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1349/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”, मुंबई श्री विकास अवस्थी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. रिफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 1093/मुं/2019 (नि.व. 2012-13) ITA NO.1093/MUM/2019 (Α.Υ.2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. PAN: AAACT-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, JCIT, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ..... अपीलार्थी/Appellant ..... प्रतिवादी/Respondent आअसं. 134…

TATA SONS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-58, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1093/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaact-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Jcit, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.Cit (Osd)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Room No.552, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai – 400 020 बनाम Vs. Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Stree, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaact-4060-A अपीलाथ""ारा/Appellant By : Ms. Arati Vissanji & Ms. Aastha Shah, Advocates. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/03/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji and Ms. Aastha Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Ujjwal Kumar Chavhan, Sr.AR

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1093/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2012-13) Tata Sons Private Limited, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant PAN: AAACT-4060-A बनाम Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, JCIT, Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ....."ितवादी/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.1349/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Jt.CIT (OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…ide page 10. Also Kindly refer LaxmipatSinghania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., RamanlalMadanLal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8-para 15 dt.30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such same income cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed income of the firm. By perusal of…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…page 10. Also Kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., Ramanlal Madan Lal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8-para 15 dt. 30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such same income cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed income of the firm. 9.1 By perus…

GIRIRAJ PRASAD GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…page 10. Also Kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., Ramanlal Madan Lal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8- para 15 dt. 30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that Giriraj Prasad Goyal vs. ITO such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such same income cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed inc…

DILIP BHAGWAT PIMPLE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal stands ALLOWED

ITA 532/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 0532/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dilip Bhagwat Pimple 544, Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, Pune-411036 Pan:Aifpp6866J . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh PatilFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 144Section 250Section 270A

…by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘CIT Vs Bikaji Dadabhai & Co.’ reported 42 ITR 123 which Hon’ble Lordships ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 8 Dilip Bhagwat Pimple ITA No. 532/PUN/2023 AY:2017-18 subsequently reiterated in ‘Jain Brothers Vs Union of India’ reported in 77 ITR 107. Thus in the light of aforestated ratio, we are heedful to state that, the Ld. FAA without first adjudicating the quantum appeal that is to say without first determining the basic tax has proceeded to determine the additional tax in the form of penalty u/s 270A. That is to say the Ld. FAA tried to build floors in the air without first laying down…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)

…[2006] 281 ITR 346 (Del.) 13. CIT v. Gopal Purohit [2010] 336 ITR 287 (Born.) Classification of interest income as income from other source Income cannot be doubly taxed Laxmipat Singhania v. (,'IT [1969] 72 ITR 291 (SC) Jain Brothers v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107 (SC) CIT v Nagarjuna Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd [2014] 373 ITR 252 (AP) ITA Nos.2484 & 2485/CHNY/2019 Page 16 of 26 Interest income should constitute business income CIT v Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd [2018] 403 ITR 453 (Kar) (FB) Swire Holdings (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2006] 6 SOT 621 (Bang- Trib.) (SMC) Eveready Industries India Ltd v. CIT 12010]…

KADAVANTHARA BUILDERS PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. ITO, WARD -4(2), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2484/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)

SAGE INTERNATIONAL INC.,USA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INT. TAXATION 3(1)(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sage International Inc., Vs Acit, 105, Townline Road, 2 Pmb 332, Circle 3(1)(2), Vernon Hills, Foreign United International States, Usa. Taxation, Delhi. Pan-Aaycs9212R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Respondent By Shri Bhuvnesh Kulshrestha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 .

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 4Section 90

…orities below. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, if any addition is made ill the year under consideration, then it will amount to double addition which is against the provision of law. Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (sq, it has been held as under:- " It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax ..... If any double taxation is involved, the Legis…

M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…taxed twice, kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania Vis CIT 72 ITR 291 (SC), CIT w/s MP. Jaya Ram 100 Taxman 544 (Kar). Gyan Chand Jain Vis ITO 73 TTJ 889 (JD) Gem Palace Vis CIT 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) Ramanlal Madan Lal V/s CIT 116 ITR 657 (Cal), Jain Brothers Vis UOI 77 ITR 107 (SC), Futher, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Gowadła Jewellers in ITA No.776/Jw/05 at page-8 para 15 dated 30/09/2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such same income cannot be brought to tax as undisclosed income of the firm. Further…

PRAMOD N. PRAJAPATI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 621/SRT/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Dec 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Pramod N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, B-1, Panchvati Apartment, Valsad. Vs. Tokarkhada, Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2457 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Hasmukhbhai N. Prajapati, Pr.Cit-1, E 8, Gokul Vihar, Tokarkhada, Valsad. Vs. Silvasa, D&Nh-396230 Pan No. Accpp 2456 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 250Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…n respect of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 1998-1999. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in treating finding in assessment proceedings as sole basis of penalty without anything more as held in Jain Bros. Vs Union of India 77 ITR 107 (SC). 3. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in levying penalty without recording finding of concealment as held in CIT Vs. Anwar Ali 76 ITR 690 (SC), CIT vs/ Khoday Eswarsa 83 ITR 369 (SC) and Ananthraman Veerasinghaiah & Cop. Vs CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC). 4. Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- is assessed as income of…

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P .LTD.,AJMER vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…clared the same in the 40 ITA NO. 397/JP/2015 RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER subsequent year and paid taxes thereon. Double taxation of the same income is not permissible, is a settled law.Kindly refer Jain Brother & other and UOI and other 77 ITR 107(SC). The AO and ld. CIT(A) both have admitted the fact of deferred sale. Kindly refer Pg-11 Pr. 4.3 of ld. CIT(A) order. However, the CIT(A) has shifted the onus upon the assessee which is not justified because the computation of deferred sale made by the AO is not correct with a mathematical precision. Regarding GP rate please refer our submissio…

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…1 Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak Vs. ITo IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. _6644/DEL/2019 [Assessment Year: 2014-15 Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak, Vs Income-tax Officer, House no. 75, 2nd Floor, Vigyan Lok, Ward-47(5), New Delhi East Delhi-110092 PAN- AASPK2315C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 24.08.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16,…

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3