Ltd. vs. ACIT 47 SOT 169(Mum) (xiv) Mishapar Investments Ltd. v. ITO

131 ITD 263Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#22378 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2018.

Judgments citing Ltd. vs. ACIT 47 SOT 169(Mum) (xiv) Mishapar Investments Ltd. v. ITO

Madhu Sarda, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…ITA No. 7410/M/2012 Madhu Sarda IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER In the matter of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 PAN: AAJPS 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue Assessee by Sh. Harish M. Kapadia : Advocate Revenue by : Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 09.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…Raj.) 10 CIT V/s Raja Narendra. (199r) 210 ITR 250 (Raj) 49 11 CIT V/s Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) 49-50 12 CIT V/s Smt. Sushila Devi (2001) 256 ITR 179 (Del.) 50 DCIT V/s Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy 13 50-51 Services Ltd. (2011) 131 ITD 263 (Del) 14 51-53 CIT V/s P.v. Kalyanasundaram, (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) 15 CIT V/s BhanwarLal Murawatiya (2008) 3 DTR 115 (Raj) 53-55 7. Before the ld. CIT(A), reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements where alleged unexplained investment in house was deleted. It was requested that assessee case was stronger on facts and therefore…

D.C.I.T Cir - 56, Kolkata. vs. Smt. Sarita Arora, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 48

…d M/s. Sood Realters and Developers treating the same as not genuine. The ld. CIT(Appeals) relying on two orders of the Hon’ble Delhi Benches of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT –vs.- Jindal Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Limited reported in [2011] 131 ITD 263 and ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of KRA Holding & Trading (P) Ltd. –vs.- DCIT reported in [2011] 46 SOT 19 (Pune) opined that the Assessing Officer was not justified in disallowing the expenditure on payment to M/s. Sood Realters & Developers and thereby directed the Assessing Officer to allow the said deduction. During the proceedings before thi…