Shri Pradip C. Patel v. DCIT

58 TTJ 409Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#25299 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Shri Pradip C. Patel v. DCIT

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiincome Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Ward-49(4), Prop M/S. Real Services, New Delhi C-2/36, 2Nd Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi Pan: Aahpc8798E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 69C

…am vs. ITO 63 TTJ 557 (Del); iv) M.P. Mallival vs. JCIT10 SOT 319 (Hyd)(TM); v) ITO vs. L.N. Mehta (HUF) 77 TTJ 63 Jodhopur); vi) ACIT vs. K.H. Dhamdhere 19 SOT 201 (Coch); vii) Harakchand P. Vora vs. ACIT 68 TTJ 417 (Mum); viii) Pradip C. Patel vs. DCIT 58 TTJ 409 (Ahd); ix) Lakshmi Jewellery vs. ACIT 73 TTJ 981 (Mad); x) Om Prakash Sharma vs. DCIT 4 SOT 369 (Jaipur); xi) ITO vs. Dr. Anand Meenawat 43 TTJ 213 (Jaipur); xii) Mahaan Food Ltd. vs. DCIT 27 DTR (Del)(Trib) 185." As per the language used by the Legislature in section 69C, the burden is on the A.O. to prove that the assessee has "incurred" an…

Shri Jignesh Chandulal Hirpara, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 45/RJT/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.45/Rjt/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Jignesh Chandulal Hirpara, Ito, बनाम/ 903-Trimurti Tower, Mahadev Ward – 3(2), Vs. Wadi, Opp. Haveli, Rajkot. Laxminagar, Main Road, Rajkot "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abvph 5468 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Usha N Shrote, Sr.D.R.

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Usha N Shrote, Sr.D.R

Section 133(6)Section 69A

…ently confirmed by the ld CIT(A) for Rs.33,000/- on account of less drawing without bringing any supporting evidence. In this regard, we find support and guidance from the order of this Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Shri Pradip C. Patel vs. DCIT reported in 58 TTJ 409, wherein it was held as under: “There was no finding by the Assessing Officer about the assessee having any personal domestic servant, any extraordinarily high electric bills, huge payments such as membership of any clubs, etc., which could justify the estimate of expenditure made by the Assessing Officer for the different assessment years include…

Rina S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 23, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5205/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 144

…is on the Assessing Officer to prove existence of understatement of expenditure by assessee through cogent evidence to justify the addition. For such proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in case of Pradeep C. Patel v/s DCIT, 58 TTJ 409 (Mum.). Thus, it was submitted, the addition made under section 69C of the Act should be deleted. 15. Learned Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted, before the Assessing Officer, assessee did not bring any evidence on record to show that she has not incurred any expenditure. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, when th…