Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

398 ITR 292High Court#20735 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e vs. 1T0 iii) 1TA No. 339l/D/2018 dated 8.1.2019 Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. PC1T iv) ITA No. 2799/D/2018 dated 21.6.2019 Champ Info Software vs. PC1T v) ITA No. 3097/D/2014 dated 1.7.2019 Dwarkadhis Buildwell (P) ltd. vs. CIT 15.6 Then, in “CIT Vs Neerav Modi” 398 ITR 292 (Bom), it was held that the AO was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 55 assessee, establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the donor, as also the genuineness of the gift; that the CIT, in his order, had not indicated any do…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e vs. 1T0 iii) 1TA No. 339l/D/2018 dated 8.1.2019 Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. PC1T iv) ITA No. 2799/D/2018 dated 21.6.2019 Champ Info Software vs. PC1T v) ITA No. 3097/D/2014 dated 1.7.2019 Dwarkadhis Buildwell (P) ltd. vs. CIT 15.6 Then, in “CIT Vs Neerav Modi” 398 ITR 292 (Bom), it was held that the AO was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 55 assessee, establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the donor, as also the genuineness of the gift; that the CIT, in his order, had not indicated any do…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e vs. 1T0 iii) 1TA No. 339l/D/2018 dated 8.1.2019 Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. PC1T iv) ITA No. 2799/D/2018 dated 21.6.2019 Champ Info Software vs. PC1T v) ITA No. 3097/D/2014 dated 1.7.2019 Dwarkadhis Buildwell (P) ltd. vs. CIT 15.6 Then, in “CIT Vs Neerav Modi” 398 ITR 292 (Bom), it was held that the AO was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 55 assessee, establishing the identity and credit worthiness of the donor, as also the genuineness of the gift; that the CIT, in his order, had not indicated any do…

The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. M.G.F. Growth Research and Investment Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2311/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR
Section 13Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153(4)Section 68

…Courts have interpreted that only period during which proceedings remained stayed ought to be excluded. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 398 ITR 292. He placed on record copy of judgment dated 8.9.2017. He further relied upon the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., rendered in ITA No.1688/Ahd/2015 wherein the Tribunal has followed judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandra Bhan Bansal, 46 taxmann.com 108 (…

Saheb Ram Om Prakash Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (398 ITR 292) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax