Mysore Minerals ltd. vs. CIT (106 Taxman 166 (SC) SBI Home Finance ltd. v. CIT (

11 SOT 603Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#22093 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 14 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 250(4)Section 251 Section 271(1)(b)Section 46A

Judgments citing Mysore Minerals ltd. vs. CIT (106 Taxman 166 (SC) SBI Home Finance ltd. v. CIT (

JAYPRAKASH RAMCHANDRA SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. WARD-28(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2196/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, Gr Flr Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bccps 4784 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Bhupendra Shah

Section 143(2)Section 234Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayprakash Ramchandra Shinde Ward 28(1)(4), Flat No. 1, GR FLR Plot No. 135/A, Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Vs. Sector-6, Sarsole Nerul, Bandra (East), Navi Mumbai-400706. Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. BCCPS 4784 A Appellant Respondent : Mr. Bhupendra Shah Assessee by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Revenue by : 04/07/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed again…

ASST CIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJUL V. VORA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2575/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2012-13

For Appellant: Dr. Rajeev HaritFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram

Section 143(3)Section 69

…f the assessee, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee when the same was held by him in a fiduciary capacity as Partner of the firm :- 6 Shri Rajul V. Vora i) ITO vs. Shri Amit Vijay Kulkarni, 1597/PN/2013 ii) Muthoot Bankers vs. DCIT, (2007) 11 SOT 603 (Cochin-Trib) iii) Gandamal & Sons vs ACIT, (2006) 101 ITD 368 (Pune-Trib) 11. Lastly, it was argued that assessee has filed the Affidavit-cum- Declaration that the land does not belong to the assessee but belongs to M/s. Dosti Enterprises. It was thus argued that when an Affidavit is filed, the same is deemed to be correct unless proved otherwis…

DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the above ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit – 4(1)(2), M/S Edwise Consultant Pvt. Ltd., 6Th Floor, Room No. 640, Jer Mahal, Opp. Metro Cinema, Aayakar Bhavan, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Mumbai - 400002 Pan: Aaacr2363N

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143Section 40A(2)(b)

…he company and are used for the purpose of business of the company. The assessee relied on the following cases to substantiate its claim: Mysore Minerals ltd. vs. CIT (106 Taxman 166 (SC) SBI Home Finance ltd. Vs CIT (148 Taxman 585) Muthoot Bankers Vs Dy CIT 11 SOT 603 CIT Vs. Navdurga Transport 149 CTR 219 CIT vs Amber Corp 207 ITR 435 4. However, the AO rejecting the contention of the assessee and distinguishing the facts of the cases relied upon by the assessee, rejected the claim of depreciation and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 11,12,18,430/-. In the first a…