Laxmanbhai S. Patel v. CIT

327 ITR 281High Court2010#24502 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 132(4A)Section 143(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

audi alteram partem undisclosed income section 132 section 143(2)section 13 section 143 person section 14 document interest

Judgments citing Laxmanbhai S. Patel v. CIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (It), Visakhapatnam vs. Shri Apparao Mukkamala, Usa

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed, while for the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and the petition filed by the Department had been dismissed. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Laxmanbhai S. Patel Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 281 (Guj.), had deliberated upon the ramifications of not allowing the opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. It was observed that, in the absence of allowing of cross- examination, the addition which was based on the statement of the third party was required to be deleted on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. Th…

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 133(6)Section 68

…ioned High Courts and Tribunals have endorsed the principle mentioned High Courts and Tribunals have endorsed the principle mentioned above. A few of these judgments are given above. A few of these judgments are given as under:- In Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs CIT, 327 ITR 281(2010), the Hon'ble In Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs CIT, 327 ITR 281(2010), the Hon'ble In Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs CIT, 327 ITR 281(2010), the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat has considered the legal effect of a statement High Court of Gujrat has considered the legal effect of a statement High Court of Gujrat has considered the legal effect of a statement r…

DCIT, Circle 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Vikas Kumar Chhajer, Vizianagaram

ITA 212/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and the petition filed by the Department had been dismissed. Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Laxmanbhai S. Patel Vs. CIT (2010) 327 ITR 281 (Guj.), had deliberated upon the ramifications of not allowing the opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. It was observed that, in the absence of allowing of cross-examination, the addition which was based on the statement of the third party was required to be deleted on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The…