Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

26 SOT 30Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#24056 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…(Ahd- Trib) 6. Panchal Associates v. ITO (1989) 43 Taxman 295 (Ahd-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 7. VishnulalKarwa v. ITO (1987) 32 Taxman 276 (Jp-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 8. ITO v. Kaka Iron Stores (1996) 54 TTJ (Chd-Trib) 142 9. Kishan Lai Jewels (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 26 SOT 30 (Del- Trib) 10. Assessing Officer v. Mohan LalBubna Bros. (1994) 120 Taxation 75 (Dcl-Trib) and ACIT v. Tulsi Narayan Garg (2010) 34 (II) ITCL 554 (Agra-Trib). 11. CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) 12. Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT &Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) : (2003) 177 Taxdtion 390 (Gau) 13 Asstt. CIT v. Mahavir Metals & Alloys (…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ained the relevant credits in the bank account of the appellant. Thus, no addition was called for u/s 68 of the Act for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07. The ratio laid down from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 26 SOT 30 (Del) (Page Nos. 603-611 of the Paper Book - II) supports the case of the assessee, wherein it was held as under: "Income - Cash credit - Scope and validity of addition u/s 68 - In every case of application of section 68, nature and source of sum found credited have first to be examined - Even though there was enough evidence on record to treat…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ained the relevant credits in the bank account of the appellant. Thus, no addition was called for u/s 68 of the Act for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2006-07. The ratio laid down from Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2006) 26 SOT 30 (Del) (Page Nos. 603-611 of the Paper Book - II) supports the case of the assessee, wherein it was held as under: "Income - Cash credit - Scope and validity of addition u/s 68 - In every case of application of section 68, nature and source of sum found credited have first to be examined - Even though there was enough evidence on record to treat…

Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (26 SOT 30) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax