Piyush Poddar v. CIT

393 ITR 381High Court2017#17825 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Judgments citing Piyush Poddar v. CIT

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 CTR 515 (Allahabad) [19-01-2005] "For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit the factual foundation has to be laid by the assessee. Piyush Poddar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, XVII [2017] 88 taxmann.com 599 (Calcutta)/[2017] 393 ITR 381 (Calcutta)[14-01-2015] "8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned advocates appearing before us. We are inclined to think that Mr. Saraf is correct in his submission that the factual foundation for applying the theory of peak credit was not laid by the assessee. The assessee may have impliedly done so, but expressly no s…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Thruvembalam Subramanaian, Aranthangi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in all four cases are

ITA 163/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.157 & 163/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 V. The Asst. Commissioner – Mr.Thiruvambalam- Of Income Tax, Subramanaian, Central Circle-2, Ward-27, 36 No.44, Williams Road, Veeramakaliyamman Kovil Cantonment, Street, Trichy-620 001. Aranthangi-614 616. [Pan: Bgwps 0913 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv
Section 144Section 269Section 269SSection 69A

….CIT, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT reported in [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Piyush Poddar v. CIT reported in [2017] 393 ITR 381 (Calcutta) submitted that unless assessee explains the requirement of applying ‘peak credit theory’, the benefit of ‘peak credit theory’, cannot be given to the assessee. He further submitted that in order to apply ‘peak credit theory’, the assessee should explain with necessary evidences that there was a periodical withdrawal and deposit of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Anbu Kannan A, Kumbakonam

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in all four cases are

ITA 162/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.157 & 163/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 V. The Asst. Commissioner – Mr.Thiruvambalam- Of Income Tax, Subramanaian, Central Circle-2, Ward-27, 36 No.44, Williams Road, Veeramakaliyamman Kovil Cantonment, Street, Trichy-620 001. Aranthangi-614 616. [Pan: Bgwps 0913 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv
Section 144Section 269Section 269SSection 69A

….CIT, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT reported in [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Piyush Poddar v. CIT reported in [2017] 393 ITR 381 (Calcutta) submitted that unless assessee explains the requirement of applying ‘peak credit theory’, the benefit of ‘peak credit theory’, cannot be given to the assessee. He further submitted that in order to apply ‘peak credit theory’, the assessee should explain with necessary evidences that there was a periodical withdrawal and deposit of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Smt. Maheshwari, Pudukottai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in all four cases are

ITA 161/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.157 & 163/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 V. The Asst. Commissioner – Mr.Thiruvambalam- Of Income Tax, Subramanaian, Central Circle-2, Ward-27, 36 No.44, Williams Road, Veeramakaliyamman Kovil Cantonment, Street, Trichy-620 001. Aranthangi-614 616. [Pan: Bgwps 0913 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv
Section 144Section 269Section 269SSection 69A

….CIT, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT reported in [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Piyush Poddar v. CIT reported in [2017] 393 ITR 381 (Calcutta) submitted that unless assessee explains the requirement of applying ‘peak credit theory’, the benefit of ‘peak credit theory’, cannot be given to the assessee. He further submitted that in order to apply ‘peak credit theory’, the assessee should explain with necessary evidences that there was a periodical withdrawal and deposit of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Thruvembalam Subramanaian, Aranthangi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in all four cases are

ITA 157/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.157 & 163/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2014-15 V. The Asst. Commissioner – Mr.Thiruvambalam- Of Income Tax, Subramanaian, Central Circle-2, Ward-27, 36 No.44, Williams Road, Veeramakaliyamman Kovil Cantonment, Street, Trichy-620 001. Aranthangi-614 616. [Pan: Bgwps 0913 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv
Section 144Section 269Section 269SSection 69A

….CIT, referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT reported in [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Piyush Poddar v. CIT reported in [2017] 393 ITR 381 (Calcutta) submitted that unless assessee explains the requirement of applying ‘peak credit theory’, the benefit of ‘peak credit theory’, cannot be given to the assessee. He further submitted that in order to apply ‘peak credit theory’, the assessee should explain with necessary evidences that there was a periodical withdrawal and deposit of…

Piyush Poddar v. CIT (393 ITR 381) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax