M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v. ITO

116 ITR 657High Court1979#14587 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234A Section 234B Section 234C Section 68 Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66 section 158bc best judgment assessment interest u/s 234a section 260 section 260a rejection of books of account section 40a(3)section 145(3)section 158b section 158

Judgments citing M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v. ITO

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…1 MS. PRIYANKA SURANA VS ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 102/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Priyanka Surana cuke The ITO Vs. 201, Sterling Apartment, B-6-B Ward 5 (1) Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPS 1109 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh v…

ABDUL NAYAB SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 23(1)(1), MATURMANDIR, MUMBAI

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4012/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 4Section 54Section 54F

…158 ITR 224 (AP). it took the view which we have taken and then again in B'. R. Construction,s' case [1993] 202 ITR 222 (AP) [FB]. it has gone back to the other view and reiterated the view taken inthe judgment under appeal. In RamanlalMudanlal v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 657 Sabyasachi Mukharji J., speaking for a Bench of the Calcutta High Court, recognised the distinction in the language employed in section of the 1922 Act and section 4 of the present Act, but that was a case of an unregistered firm where the Income-tax Officer had assessed theincomes in the hands of the partners individually. In such a situation, t…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…the case of Sh. AvdeshDangayach V/s ACIT Cir.6 in ITA No. 464/Jp/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 vide page 10. Also Kindly refer LaxmipatSinghania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., RamanlalMadanLal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8-para 15 dt.30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as such…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…e case of Sh. Avdesh Dangayach V/s ACIT Cir.6 in ITA No. 464/Jp/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 vide page 10. Also Kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., Ramanlal Madan Lal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8-para 15 dt. 30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and as su…

GIRIRAJ PRASAD GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…e case of Sh. Avdesh Dangayach V/s ACIT Cir.6 in ITA No. 464/Jp/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 vide page 10. Also Kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania v/s CIT 72 ITR 291(SC), CIT v/s M.P. JayaRam 100 Taxman 544(Kar), Gyan Chand Jain v/s ITO 73 TTJ 859(Jd). Gem Palace v/s CIT 168 ITR 543(Raj.)., Ramanlal Madan Lal v/s CIT 116 ITR 657(Cal.), Jain Brothers v/s UOI 77 ITR 107(SC), Further the Honble ITAT in the group case of M/s Gowadia Jewellers in ITA No. 776/Ju/05 at page 8- para 15 dt. 30.09.2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that Giriraj Prasad Goyal vs. ITO such income was already disclosed in the hands of…

M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…artners. It is fundamental rule of taxation that unless provided, same income cannot be taxed twice, kindly refer Laxmipat Singhania Vis CIT 72 ITR 291 (SC), CIT w/s MP. Jaya Ram 100 Taxman 544 (Kar). Gyan Chand Jain Vis ITO 73 TTJ 889 (JD) Gem Palace Vis CIT 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) Ramanlal Madan Lal V/s CIT 116 ITR 657 (Cal), Jain Brothers Vis UOI 77 ITR 107 (SC), Futher, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur in the case of M/s Gowadła Jewellers in ITA No.776/Jw/05 at page-8 para 15 dated 30/09/2008 deleted certain additions, mainly on the reasoning that such income was already disclosed in the hands of the working partner and…

ITO, WARD-3(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI HEMANT HIRALAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.174/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year :2014-15 Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) Shri Hemant Hiralal Shah Ahmedabad. Vs 112, Devang Apartment, Opp: Patel Hospital Nehru Park Vastrapur Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Abjps 1499 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri Karan Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against Order Dated 15.01.2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 7, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Asst.Year 2014- 15. 2. Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Has A Delay Of 111 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit Stating That He Was Away From Usa During The Period 12.5.2019 & 05.07.2019 When Form No.36 Filed By The Revenue Was Served On Him At His Address. The Form No.36

For Appellant: Shri Karan shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…uildwell P. L [2014] 220 Taxman 138 [Allahbad-HC] xiii) Labh Chandra Bohra vs. ITO [2014] 219 CTR 571 [Rajasthan-HC] xiv) Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) xv) Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) xvi) In Gem Palace vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 543 (Raj.) xvii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC) xviii) Rollon Containers vs ITO, Hyderabad [2012] xix) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LALIT KUMAR PODDAR (2015) 56 taxmann.com 462/231 Taxman 816 (Delhi) In view of the aforesaid facts and submission, to delete the addition made by the Ld. A.O of Rs.2,48,75,684/- as unexplained addition u…