Kumar Singhal v. ITO’, 33

281 ITR 366High Court2006#12547 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Kumar Singhal v. ITO’, 33

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3740/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ssessment has been upheld by Tribunal and order of Tribunal has acquired finality overlooks the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant: a) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT b) 194 ITR 548 (Born) Inventors Industrial Corpn. Vs. CIT c) 281 ITR 366 (All) Abdul Majid vs. CIT d) 21 SOT 440 (Kol) Pearless Ge. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT e) 127 ITD 160™ (Chennai) Hemal Knitting Industries vs. JCIT f) ITA No. 2638/2005 (Kar) dated 5.4.2010 CIT v Mis PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding the add…

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ssessment has been upheld by Tribunal and order of Tribunal has acquired finality overlooks the following judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant: a) 113 ITR 22 (Guj) P.V. Doshi vs. CIT b) 194 ITR 548 (Born) Inventors Industrial Corpn. Vs. CIT c) 281 ITR 366 (All) Abdul Majid vs. CIT d) 21 SOT 440 (Kol) Pearless Ge. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT e) 127 ITD 160™ (Chennai) Hemal Knitting Industries vs. JCIT f) ITA No. 2638/2005 (Kar) dated 5.4.2010 CIT v Mis PaiVaibhav Hotels (P) Ltd 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in upholding the add…

Shri Shri Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Jagdalpur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 273/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 273/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ajay Kumar Agrawal, C/O. Ajay Kirana Stores, Rajmahalparisar, Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.)-494 001 Pan : Ajgpa3386A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur, Dist. Baster (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 50CSection 54F

…) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014 was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed on the said count itself. In support of his aforesaid contentions the Ld. AR had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Abdul Majid Vs. CIT (2006) 281 ITR 366 (All.) 2. CIT Vs. Baldwin Boys High School (2014) 364 ITR 637(Karn.) 3. CIT Vs. Shiv Ratan Soni (2005) 279 ITR 261 ( Raj.) 4. Baldev Singh Giani Vs. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 266 (P & H.) 7 Ajay Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We hav…

Avnindra Mishra, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

…y DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). I.T.A No. 441/Agra/2017 5 ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by my decision in ITA No. 238/Agra/2018, for A.Y.2008-09, in ‘Shri Ghanshyam’, order dated 19/06/2018, wherein, having considered all the respective decisions…

Anita Yadav, Mathura vs. ITO -1(3)(1), Mathura

The appeal is allowed

ITA 422/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 148Section 151

…19 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. I.T.A No. 422/Agra/2017 5 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by my decision in ITA No. 238/Agra/2018, for A.Y.2008-09, in ‘Shri Ghanshyam’, order dated 19/06/2018, wherein, having considered a…

Bijendra Kumar, Mathura vs. ITO-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 409/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…19 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. The approval has been granted by observing thus: “Yes” 8. Question is whether this approval is in accordance with law. 9. The matter in dispute is directly covered by my decision in ITA No. 238/Agra/2018, for A.Y.2008-09, in ‘Shri Ghanshyam’, order dated 19/06/2018, I.T.A Nos.409 & 419/Agra/2017 5 wherein, having consi…

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 238/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…19 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted by the Additional CIT, the approval has been granted by observing thus: “Ji Haan Main Santusht Hoon.” Translated, this approval states: ‘Yes, I am satisfied’. Question is whether 8. this approval is in accordance with law. In the case of ‘Sunil Agrawal vs. ITO’, the ITAT, Delhi vide or…

Ghanshyam, Mathura vs. ITO 3(2), Mathura

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 129/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…19 of 2014 (All. H.C.) ‘Sanjay DCIT’, vi. Kumar Agarwal, HUF vs. ITA No.290/Agra/2010 (ITAT-Agra). ‘ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur’, 224 ITR 362 (SC). vii. viii. ‘Anil Kumar Singhal vs. ITO’, 33 taxman. Com 434 (Agra Trib.) (SMC Bench). ‘Abdul Majid vs. CIT’, 281 ITR 366 (All). ix. 7. Heard. In the above quoted approval granted by the Additional CIT, the approval has been granted by observing thus: “Ji Haan Main Santusht Hoon.” Translated, this approval states: ‘Yes, I am satisfied’. Question is whether 8. this approval is in accordance with law. In the case of ‘Sunil Agrawal vs. ITO’, the ITAT, Delhi vide or…