Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

112 ITR 480High Court1975#22028 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961: Sections 68Section 1962: Rule 46A(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

Judgments citing Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

Sanjeev Mittal, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7454/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…) is attracted in the case of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) considered the facts and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and decisions of Hon’ble P & H High Court in Arjun Dass vs. CIT (1975) 112 ITR 480 (P&H) and in CIT vs. Jind Co- operative Sugar Mills (2011) 335 ITR 43 (P&H) admitted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee before him. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) obtained remand report dated 17.08.2018 from the Ld. AO on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. This is reproduced in para 10 of the appellate order. The Ld. CIT(A) calle…

M/S Poddar Finin Consultancy P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1860/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1860/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poddar Finin Consultancy बिधम/ Ito Ward Pvt. Ltd. Maharashtra-410206. Vs. 4A/B, Ground Floor, Tk Industries Estate, Sitaram Palturam Murai Marg, Mumbai- 400015. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcp3938D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.08.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1) The Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Assessing Officer (Ao) Is Invalid & Bad In Law. 2) (A) The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Assessing Officer

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…d here for the sake of brevity but nevertheless ae relied upon are as under: 1. Naba Kumar Singh Dudhuria 12 ITR 337 (CAL) 2. Sundermal & Co 68 ITR 27/ (AP) 3. HM Muthuwappa 46 ITR 1107 (MAD) 4. Girdhar Javer & Co. 24 ITR 540: p.p. 547 (BOM) 5. Arjan Das 112 ITR 480 (P&H) 6. SR Kalani 120 ITR 163 (MP) ITA. No.1860/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2012-13 8.14 In accordance with detailed discussion in preceding paragraph and placing reliance upon the judgments cited above | am adopting two simple principles for deciding an appeal against un order made ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act by the assessing officer in situations where t…

ITO, Gurgaon vs. Smt. Hema Bajaj, Gurgaon

ITA 5883/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

…ditional evidence was necessary to decide the controversy in regard to genuineness of transaction, the appellate Commissioner should have considered this evidence in exercise of his powers u/s 250 (4) and (5) of the I.T. Act. In the case of Arjan Oass vs. CIT 112 ITR 480 (P & H) , the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in all these cases where request for permission to produce additional evidence is based on bonafide ground and same is not with a view to causing undue delay, the appellate authority is bound to accept the same. In the case of CIT vs. Jind Cooperative Sugar Mills 335 ITR 43 (P & H),…