Ramilaben D Jain v. ACIT

97 Taxmann.com 217High Court2018#21691 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Judgments citing Ramilaben D Jain v. ACIT

ITO, Ward, Parwanoo vs. M/S Preethi Himachal & Company, Nalagarh

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 640/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. And Shri Ankit Awal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.639&640/CHANDI/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward- Parwanoo M/s Preethi Himachal & बनाम Company Plot No.35F, Sector-2, Nalagarh Ropar Road, Near Parwanoo. Zakat Khana Dhang Nichi Plassi, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh-173030. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAIFP0748C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. And Shri Ankit Awal, Advo…

ITO, Ward, Parwanoo vs. M/S Preethi Himachal & Company, Nalagarh

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 639/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. And Shri Ankit Awal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B” CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.639&640/CHANDI/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward- Parwanoo M/s Preethi Himachal & बनाम Company Plot No.35F, Sector-2, Nalagarh Ropar Road, Near Parwanoo. Zakat Khana Dhang Nichi Plassi, Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh-173030. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAIFP0748C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Amar Pratap Singh, Adv. And Shri Ankit Awal, Advo…

Manish Kumar Jajoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 951/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Manish Kumar ACIT 21(2), Jajoo, Room No.115, 405, Satayanarayan 1st Floor, Vs. Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, R.G. Thadani Marg, Lal Baug, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400012 PAN: ACJPJ2985J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R. Revenue by : Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has…

Jayantilal B. Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 2241/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…the paper-book, agitated both the additions. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned order. Reliance has been placed on following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Ramilaben D.Jain V/s. ACIT [Hon’ble Bombay High Court 97 Taxmann.com 217] (ii) Ratanlal J.Oswal V/s CIT [Hon’ble Bombay High Court 63 Taxmann.com 57] (iii) Sanjeev Bajaj V/s CIT [Hon’ble HC of P&H, 82 Taxmann.com 80] (iv) Equity Intelligence India P. Ltd. V/s ACIT [Hon’ble HC of Kerala, 61 Taxmann.com 256] (v) CIT V/s Pooja Investment P. Ltd. [Hon’ble HC of P&H, 45 Taxmann.com 298] 6.1 We have carefully heard…