Madathi Brothers v. DCIT (Mad)

30 ITR 345High Court#9158 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2020.

Judgments citing Madathi Brothers v. DCIT (Mad)

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

SMT. AARTI SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

SH. SANJAY SINGAL,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1018,1019/2100 (Delhi) dt. 22/11/2013 ii. CIT Vs. Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. (Del) reported at 342 ITR 169 iii. CIT Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal (Mad) reported at 158 ITR 826 iv. Madathi Brothers Vs. DCIT (Mad) reported at 30 ITR 345 13.1 The A.O. observed that it was strange that the assessee denied knowing Shri Sirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) even though the group concerns of assessee had taken share capital at huge premium and have advanced huge sums of money to paper concerns controlled and managed by SCS. He also observed that the assessee had accepted that RTGS payments we…

NEERAJ SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…

UMA SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…

RITU SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…

BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 3, NEW DELHI

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1018, 1019/2100, order dated 22.11.2013 " CIT Vs Nova Prompters and Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) " CIT Vs Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826 (Mad.) " Madathi Brothers Vs DCIT 30 ITR 345 (Mad.) ITA Nos. 1476 to 1478/Del/2018 ITA Nos. 1482, 1485 to 1487/Del/2018 The AO also observed as under: “ii. Further, in his reply, assessee has submitted that he was not aware of persons/ entity buying the shares and stated that in a regulated and formalized scenario the possibility of rigging is negligible. Further assessee in his submission s…