Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v. CIT

6 CTR 647High Court1977#21233 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 195admission of additional evidencesection 40(a)(ia)section 143companysection 14section 143(3)indiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v. CIT

KOKILA COTTON EXPORT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 755/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT foreign agents commission paid, Bank statements and details of all expenses. In support of Rule 29 application, the assessee relied upon Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. CIT reported in (1977) 6 CTR 647 (Guj.). Thus Ld. Counsel requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules in the interest of justice and fair play. 3. Regarding Asst. Year 2014-15, Ld. Counsel submitted that though it is a contested matter before Ld. CIT(A), but the documents relied upon before him was not fully appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) and thereb…

KOKILA COTTON EXPORT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1795/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT foreign agents commission paid, Bank statements and details of all expenses. In support of Rule 29 application, the assessee relied upon Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. CIT reported in (1977) 6 CTR 647 (Guj.). Thus Ld. Counsel requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules in the interest of justice and fair play. 3. Regarding Asst. Year 2014-15, Ld. Counsel submitted that though it is a contested matter before Ld. CIT(A), but the documents relied upon before him was not fully appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) and thereb…

KOKILA COTTON EXPORT PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2717/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

…Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT foreign agents commission paid, Bank statements and details of all expenses. In support of Rule 29 application, the assessee relied upon Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. CIT reported in (1977) 6 CTR 647 (Guj.). Thus Ld. Counsel requested for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules in the interest of justice and fair play. 3. Regarding Asst. Year 2014-15, Ld. Counsel submitted that though it is a contested matter before Ld. CIT(A), but the documents relied upon before him was not fully appreciated by Ld. CIT(A) and thereb…

CIT vs. VINAY MITTAL

ITA/1172/2011HC Delhi27 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…ugust 31, 1989-Circular No.4/2007, dated 15-6-2007.” 8. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari (2006) 283 ITR 338, the Gujarat High Court, after considering its earlier decision in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas Vs. CIT (1977) 6 CTR 647 (Guj.), has formulated the following tests to determine whether the assessee can be said to be carrying on business of sale and purchase of various securities or holding them as an investment. The tests are as under: ITA 1172/2011…

Pari Mangaldas Girdhardas v. CIT (6 CTR 647) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax