Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT

68 SOT 509Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#25471 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…ineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4. As discussed above the assessee showed his contract receipt t…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2210/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…ineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4. As discussed above the assessee showed his contract receipt t…

Prakash Ravanratan Jaddhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.2210/M/14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas ITA No

ITA 2209/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2209/M/14, Ita 2210/M/14 & Ita 2211/M/14 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Prakash Ravanratan बनाम/ I.T.O.-23(3)(1) Jadhav Mumbai Vs. Indira Colony, Model Town Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpj4867F

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

…ineers [2014] 224 Taxman 358 (Punjab & Haryana) iii) CIT v. Subodh Gupta [2015] 229 Taxman 367 (Delhi) iv) Hamid Khan v. ITO [2014] 65 SOT 185(Jodhpur - Trib.) v) Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT [2013] 60 SOT 146 (Pune - Trib.) vi) Ram Prasad Bhatta v. ACIT [2015] 68 SOT 509 (Cuttack - Trib.) vii) Eastern Construction Company v. ITO[1997] 59 TTJ 723 (Delhi) viii) Dhalewan Co-operative L & C Society v. ITO[2006] 157 Taxman 239 (ASR.) (MAG.) However, on the other hand the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4. As discussed above the assessee showed his contract receipt t…

Nishikant T. Patne v. ACIT (68 SOT 509) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax