Paras Shantilal Shah v. DCIT

378 ITR 41High Court2015#24740 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Paras Shantilal Shah v. DCIT

Vinay Todi, Kolkata vs. DCIT Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 664/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Todi V. Dcit – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 Pan: Adapt6426A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Vinay Todi v. DCIT – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 PAN: ADAPT6426A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department Represented by : Shri Vranda U Matkari Date of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against o…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 2726/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…out from the contention raised by the assessee before the lower authorities, then such a surrendered income needs to be added. Similarly, she relied upon another judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Paras Shantilal Shah vs. DCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 41. 7. We have heard the contentions made by the parties and also the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the order of the Tribunal. In the case, though it is seen that the assessee during the statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) at the time of search has stated that he has earned Rs. 15 crores during the last eight months from…

Mr Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 1762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…out from the contention raised by the assessee before the lower authorities, then such a surrendered income needs to be added. Similarly, she relied upon another judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Paras Shantilal Shah vs. DCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 41. 7. We have heard the contentions made by the parties and also the relevant finding given in the impugned order as well as the order of the Tribunal. In the case, though it is seen that the assessee during the statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) at the time of search has stated that he has earned Rs. 15 crores during the last eight months from…

Paras Shantilal Shah v. DCIT (378 ITR 41) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax