Mayank Poddar (HUF) v. WTO

181 CTR 362High Court2003#23226 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Mayank Poddar (HUF) v. WTO

Rekha Shekhawat, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

…filed under protest-Thereby assessee disputed his very liability to wealth-tax-AO could not have foreclosed assessee's right to appeal by issue of intimation under s.16(1)(a)(i)-Appeal maintainable under s. 23(1A)(a)" 9.1.3 Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs. WTO (2003) 181 CTR 362 (Calcutta) (DPB 36-39),wherein it was held that: "Estoppel-Applicability of principle-Interpretation of statutes-Scope-There is no estoppels against statute Property, though not taxable under the WT Act, included by assessee in taxable net wealth by misconception of law-Property does not become taxable. x x x A property, which is not otherwise ta…

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ITA No. 398/JP/2015 Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal vs DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,o Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 398,399, 400 & 401/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 cuke Shri Ramesh Chand Bansal The DCIT Vs. 27, Ravidatt, Arya Nagar, Central Circle Beawar Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPB 6056D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent f…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…v/s Apar Limited (2002) 175 CTR 312(Bom) maintained the right of appeal when return was filed under protest, without prejudice to its legal rights as according to the assessee the disputed asset was not chargeable to tax. In Mayank Poddar (HUF) v/s WTO (2003) 181 CTR 362 (Cal) permitted an appeal when the assessee had included certain asset in his return under mistake, admission or misunderstanding of the assessee, would not justify taxability. The ld. CIT(A) however has not at all considered the above facts and the case laws and wrongly alleged that since the appellant could not prove the purchases hence offere…