PCIT Vs Vivek Prahladbhai Patel (2016) 237 Taxman 331. CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd.

159 DTR 59High Court2017#19331 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing PCIT Vs Vivek Prahladbhai Patel (2016) 237 Taxman 331. CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd.

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

…d uncalled for and liable to be deleted. In support of this contention he has relied on the following decisions:- PCIT Vs Vivek Prahladbhai Patel (2016) 237 Taxman 331. CIT Vs Agile Properties (P) Ltd. (2014) 107 DTR 201. CIT VS Khandelwal shringi& Co. (2017) 159 DTR 59. ACIT VS Govindbhai N. Patel (2015) 2015 Taxman 575 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. There is no dispute that during the course of search and seizure agreement dated 30.04.2008 regarding purchase of the property by the assessee from one Shri Dayal Chetwani was found showing the total purchase c…

Shri Narendra Lakhi, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…d for and liable to be deleted. In support of this contention he has relied on the following decisions:- • PCIT Vs Vivek Prahladbhai Patel (2016) 237 Taxman 331. • CIT Vs Agile Properties (P) Ltd. (2014) 107 DTR 201. • CIT Vs Khandelwal shringi & Co. (2017) 159 DTR 59. • ACIT Vs Govindbhai N. Patel (2015) 2015 Taxman 575. 5. The ld. AR has further submitted that the property in question was owned by Late Shri Harish Kumar who has also executed a will dated 12.07.2006 in favour of one Kumari Veena Shah. There was dispute between family members of the deceased regarding inheritance of the property through the…

Shambhu Kumar Agarwal, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1382/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 cuke Shri Shambhu Kumar Agarwal The DCIT, Vs. A-780, Indra Vihar, Central Circle, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABQPA 2058 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A) & Shri Gulshan Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenu…

Shri Johri Lal Sodhani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…he assessee, AO has brought no material on record to disprove the explanation given by the assessee. Hence, the addition made u/s 69/69B is bad in law. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases:- (i) CIT Vs. Khandelwal Shringi & Co. (2017) 159 DTR 59 (Raj.) (HC) CIT(A) having found that the earlier agreement supposedly entered into by the sellers with another party which formed the basis of the opinion of AO that the market value of land purchased by the assessee was Rs.7 crores was never executed and that the AO did not adduce any other evidence to show that the market value of the land was R…