SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera

6 SCC 368Supreme Court of India2016#1482 most cited

What is SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera authority for?

The mere quantity of shares traded is insufficient to establish manipulation or fraudulent practices in share transactions. Direct evidence of collusion or fraudulent practice by the assessee is necessary to draw an adverse inference.

77

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera · Section 10(38) · Section 69C · bogus long term capital gain · share manipulation · direct evidence of fraud · collusion · onus of proof · adverse inference · retracted statement · capital market fraud

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 288

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 69CSection 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 245c(1)section 36(1)(ii)retraction of statementsettlement applicationbogus share capitalbogus long term capital gainsection 131(1)section 271aabsubstantive assessmentonus of proofpreponderance of probabilityretracted statement

Judgments citing SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera

MR. MURUGAN KARTHIK MEIYAPPAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-10(6), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2184/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A )*For Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 15HSection 234BSection 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज" के, उपा"य" एवं "ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद$य के सम" BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2184/Chny/2025 &नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Murugan Karthik ITO, Meiyappan, vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(6), New No. 7, Old No. 9-A, AVM Chennai. Avenue, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [PAN: AACPM-8115-E] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) अपीलाथ( क+ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A )*यथ( क…

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T(SS)A. No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years. 2008-09 to 2012-13) DCIT, Vs. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Central Circle-1, Chattisgarh. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AADCM5858Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 & 144/Viz/…

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T(SS)A. No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years. 2008-09 to 2012-13) DCIT, Vs. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Central Circle-1, Chattisgarh. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AADCM5858Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 & 144/Viz/…

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T(SS)A. No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years. 2008-09 to 2012-13) DCIT, Vs. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Central Circle-1, Chattisgarh. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AADCM5858Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 & 144/Viz/…

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T(SS)A. No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years. 2008-09 to 2012-13) DCIT, Vs. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Central Circle-1, Chattisgarh. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AADCM5858Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 & 144/Viz/…

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुर्ाा राि, न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T(SS)A. No.5, 6, 7, 8 & 9/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा/ Assessment Years. 2008-09 to 2012-13) DCIT, Vs. Maa Mahamaya Industries Limited, Central Circle-1, Chattisgarh. Visakhapatnam. PAN: AADCM5858Q (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 140, 141, 142, 143 & 144/Viz/…

SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO, W-1, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri P.K. Prasad, Advocate &For Respondent: \nDr. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 253Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ“ए”, चण्डीगढ़\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH\nHEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE\nश्री विक्रम सिंह यादव, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री परेश म. जोशी, न्यायिक सदस्य\nBEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM\nआयकर अपील सं . / ITA NO. 933/Chd/2019\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15\nShri Krishan Kumar Jalan\nJ-206, Purva Venezia Apartment,\n2nd Floor, Mother Dairy Yelahanka,\nBangalore-560064\nबनाम\nThe ITO\nWard-1, Sirsa\nस्थायीलेखासं . / PAN NO: AFKPK8520J\nअपीलार्थी/Appellant\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesse…

MANISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 986/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

JASMIN K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 984/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

ALPESH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

AJMERA PHARMASURE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1137/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

REENA A AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

AVANI J AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1110/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1109/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…24/04/2015. It was a case of one of the trader and investor in the capital market who has purchased and sold shares of PIL. In the said Order Court held after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SEBI vs. Kishore Ajmera (2016) 6 SCC 368 held that the quantity of shares traded by itself does not indicate manipulation unless collusion with others is found. If there is no direct evidence of operation of fraud between the assessee as a seller with that of the buyer or with other notices in the impugned order, no adverse inference can be drawn. Thus, we also hold that it is imperative…

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 12/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: \nSh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 12/JP/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2017-18\nNitin Vijay\n84/130 K. V.-5, Madhyam Marg\nMansarovar, Jaipur\nVs.\nITO,\nWard -1(4),\nJaipur\nस्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AIZPV 3971 C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by:\nSh. Rohan Sogani, CA\nर…

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

ITA 4013/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4013/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) ITO-24(2)(1) Vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF 608, Income Tax Office C-403, Runwal Elegante Lalbaug, Parel Lokhandwala Complex Mumbai-400 012. Oshiwara, Andheri West (Appellant) Mumbai-400 053. PAN : AAAHK4439D (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CA Department by Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 ORDER Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant has filed return of income on 5.6.2012 declaring…

KAUSHIK CHANDRAVADAN PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

ITA 2064/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) I.T.A. No. 2064/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2011-12) Vs. ACIT-19(2) Kaushik Chandravadan Parikh 1216, Prasad Chambers Mumbai Opera House, Mumbai-400 004. PAN : AADPP1909Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri B.V. Jhaveri & Ms. Bhargavi Raval Department by Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing 02.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 O R D E R Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- In the above captioned appeal, the appellant raised two main grounds, first being the reopening of assessment as…

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 685/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Ward Central Circle-2(3), Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAACJ7798P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 685/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Central…

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 1597/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 1594 to 1597/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Ward Central Circle-2(3), Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAACJ7798P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 685/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Jet Air Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Income Tax, Room No. 10E, Kolkata-700073 Central…

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

SEBI v. Kishore R. Ajmera (6 SCC 368) — Cited in 77 Judgments | BharatTax