Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar v. ACIT

320 ITR 106High Court2010#20483 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69Section 69A

Judgments citing Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar v. ACIT

ACIT, Cir-1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Cheryl Advisory Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2063/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Tanzil Padvekar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…e mentioned points are: relevant cases on the above mentioned points are: 1. Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) Vasanthi visweswaran 257 ITR 94 (Mad) 2. Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) Surendra M.Khandhar 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) 3. Jagjit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) jit Pal Singh Anand 320 ITR 106 (Del.) 4. Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) Chuharmal 172 ITR 250(SC) 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition 7.7. In view of the above facts and position of law, the addition made us 69A/69 amounting to Rs.2,77,92,524/ made…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…is not applicable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT against unexplained investment under the provisions of section 69 of the Act, IT 1961 where no evidence is available to prove that assessee ma…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…is not applicable. For this purpose, reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar vs. ACIT 321 ITR 254 (Bom.) (iv) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand vs. CIT 320 ITR 106 (Del.). Recently, the ITAT, Delhi in the case of Rajendra Kumar vs. DCIT in ITA No.1959/Del/2017 dated 27.02.2020 held that no addition is warranted 6 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT against unexplained investment under the provisions of section 69 of the Act, IT 1961 where no evidence is available to prove that assessee ma…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…hat the Assessing Officer had not held any enquiry into the veracity of the letter received from the CIB or had not conducted an investigation to check the allegation in the letter before "issuing the notice. [para 191 vi) Jagjit Pal Singh Anand Vs CIT (2010) 320 ITR 106 (Delhi) In Raymonds Woollen Mills Ltd v. /TO [1999) 236 ITR 34 , the Supreme Court has held that in determining whether the commencement of the reassessment proceedings was valid, it was only to be seen that there was a prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency and correctness of the mat…

Pirani vs. ACIT 250 ITR 467, (ii) Vasanthi vs. ACIT 257 ITR 94, (iii) Surendra Khandhar v. ACIT (320 ITR 106) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax