Principles of Natural Justice. (vi). In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

10 SCC 634Reported decision2005#2950 most cited

What is Principles of Natural Justice. (vi). In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise authority for?

Denying an assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses constitutes a denial of the right to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise · principles of natural justice · audi alteram partem · cross-examination · right to be heard · denial of natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 151

Issues it is cited on

audi alteram partemprice riggingbogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainlive linkpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatorlong term capital gainsaccommodation entrysection 69cgenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Principles of Natural Justice. (vi). In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise

ACIT, CIRCLE-34, KOLKATA vs. VINOD KUMAR LAHOTI, KOKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2460/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…s to strengthen his arguments. The decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in cases of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Civil Appeal No. 4228/2006 (SC) and Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) reported at 10 SCC 634 favor the assessee. Thus, the action of the AO in relying upon the statement without providing opportunity to cross examine is not as per spirit of law. 6.1.2 It has also been submitted that AO has not made any independent enquiry for reopening of assessment. The Appellant has further argued that reopening of assessment is based on borrowed satisf…

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…tions. The appellant further relies upon the following judicial authorities: (i) Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 SC 2117) (ii) State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623 (iii) Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634 (iv) Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1100 (v) CIT Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) (vi) Prakash Chand Nahta Vs. CIT, (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) (vii) Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 21 DTK 200 (Cal) (viii) CIT Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) ( (ix) CIT & Anr. Vs. Land Development Corpo…

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…t of his contentions further relies upon the following judicial authorities: (i) Kishinchand Chellaram (AIR 1980 SC 2117) (ii) State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623 (iii) Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634 (iv) Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 1100 (v) CIT Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd., (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del) (vi) Prakash Chand Nahta Vs. CIT, (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) (vii) Bangodaya Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 21 DTK 200 (Cal) (viii) CIT Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Jain (2009) 310 ITR 178 (P&H) ( (ix) CIT & Anr. Vs. Land Development Corpo…

KIRAN BHANWARLAL JOGANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-5(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 2441/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekiranbhanwarlaljogani, Vs. Ito-5(3)(3), 1101-A Wing, Pratiksha Room.No.564,5 Floor, Tower,Rs Nimkar Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400008. M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopj7976N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Rajkumar Singh.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Richa Gulati.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Richa Gulati.DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…h and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.AIR 2009 SC 2448; Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question had been acc…

HEENA SURESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Suresh M. Jain HUF v. ITO-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 PAN: AALHS7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain v. ITA-19(3)(5) 52A, 2nd, Nanubhai Desai Road 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir Mumbai-400004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 PAN: AEJPJ2380P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rameshkumar Mohanlal Jain v. ITO-19(3)(1) Flat No. 1603, 16th Floor 2nd Floor, Matru…

SURESH M JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Suresh M. Jain HUF v. ITO-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 PAN: AALHS7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain v. ITA-19(3)(5) 52A, 2nd, Nanubhai Desai Road 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir Mumbai-400004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 PAN: AEJPJ2380P (Appellant) (Respondent) Rameshkumar Mohanlal Jain v. ITO-19(3)(1) Flat No. 1603, 16th Floor 2nd Floor, Matru…

SHRI ANAND KISHORE BAGREE,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…48;Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal A.Yr.2014-15 West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944,considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question had been acco…

RAKESH SHANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO-18(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors.AIR 2009 SC 2448; Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the crossexamination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods in question 17 Shri Rake…

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2016-17) DCIT, CC-8(1) बिधम/ M/s. Jainam Investments 11A, 5th Floor, Rockside Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Apartment, A Wing, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFJ1230A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /D…

P MITTAL MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6906/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Sinha, Adv. & Sh. AshviniFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…that he be given the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice. (vi). In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, (2005) 10 SCC 634, the Apex Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered whether to grant permission for cross-examination of a witness. In that case, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to crossexamine the representatives of the concerned firm, in order to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for…

SMT.GEETA KHARE,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, KALYAN

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Smt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 PAN – AHOPK7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (HUF) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden CHS Ashar IT Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, MIDC Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 PAN – AAUHS1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent by: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh…

PRITY GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

NISHANK GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

PREM RATTAN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

VISHAL KASHYAP,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

KAMLESH RANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-39(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 SMT. KAMLESH RANI, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: ALPR0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 VISHAL KASHYAP, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: BMYPK9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2014-15 PREM RATTAN GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 39(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :…

AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2014-15 AASHNA CAPITAL SERVICES (P) vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAHCA2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NISHANK GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAEPG2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 PRITY GUPTA, vs. ITO, WARD 32(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AHEPG6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assess…

REKHA MAHESHWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 MS. REKHA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 55(1), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2941L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee challenges order passed by Ld CIT(Appeals) 19 New Delhi confirming Ld AO’s action disallowing long term capital gains exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act invoking deeming provisions of section 68 of the Act. 2. The brief fac…

RIMA MAHESHWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 VINESH MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND AY: 2015-16 RIMA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These aforesaid appeals have been filed by the respective assessee’s challenging similar order…

VINESH MAHESHWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY: 2015-16 VINESH MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) AND AY: 2015-16 RIMA MAHESWARI, vs. ITO, WARD 61(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AFXPM6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These aforesaid appeals have been filed by the respective assessee’s challenging similar order…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2