Jyothirsinhji Gondal v. CIT Tax

326 ITR 594High Court#24497 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2017.

Judgments citing Jyothirsinhji Gondal v. CIT Tax

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…support of his contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT V/s Kamalini Khatau-209 ITR 101(SC); ii) Vikramsinghji Gondal-363 ITR 679 (SC); iii) Jyothirsinhji Gondal V/s CIT Tax appeal 229/2002 and others decided on 12.9.2008 reported in 326 ITR 594 (Gujarat High Court). iv) Shanta Ben Patel in ITA No.5000/Mum/2001 Mumbai Bench of ITAT; The ld. AR finally prayed before the Bench that since the distribution of corpus in the hands of the assessee of AADT was a capital receipt the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and AO be directed to delete the addition. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand, vehe…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…support of his contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT V/s Kamalini Khatau-209 ITR 101(SC); ii) Vikramsinghji Gondal-363 ITR 679 (SC); iii) Jyothirsinhji Gondal V/s CIT Tax appeal 229/2002 and others decided on 12.9.2008 reported in 326 ITR 594 (Gujarat High Court). iv) Shanta Ben Patel in ITA No.5000/Mum/2001 Mumbai Bench of ITAT; The ld. AR finally prayed before the Bench that since the distribution of corpus in the hands of the assessee of AADT was a capital receipt the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and AO be directed to delete the addition. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand, vehe…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…support of his contention, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT V/s Kamalini Khatau-209 ITR 101(SC); ii) Vikramsinghji Gondal-363 ITR 679 (SC); iii) Jyothirsinhji Gondal V/s CIT Tax appeal 229/2002 and others decided on 12.9.2008 reported in 326 ITR 594 (Gujarat High Court). iv) Shanta Ben Patel in ITA No.5000/Mum/2001 Mumbai Bench of ITAT; The ld. AR finally prayed before the Bench that since the distribution of corpus in the hands of the assessee of AADT was a capital receipt the order of CIT(A) should be reversed and AO be directed to delete the addition. 6. The ld.DR on the other hand, vehe…

Jyothirsinhji Gondal v. CIT Tax (326 ITR 594) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax