Shyam Sunder Jindal v. ACIT

81 Taxmann.com 123High Court2017#10935 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also reported as

188 TTJ 404

Issues it is cited on

section 149(1)(c)section 159third party informationsection 5(2)protective assessmentfirst proviso to section 147section 151(2)non application of mindbusiness connectionsection 149(1)interest under section 234bsection 251

Judgments citing Shyam Sunder Jindal v. ACIT

SHRI VIJAY KANAIYALAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 652/SRT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 148Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 651 & 652/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) (Virtual hearing) Shri Vijay Kanaiyalal Savani, I.T.O., Flat No. 402, Divyakranti Appt., Ward-1(3)(3), Vs. Althwalines, Parle Point, Surat. Surat. PAN No. FZTPS 8203 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Tushar P Hemani, Senior Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Advocate Respondent represented by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing 11/10/2022 Date of pronouncemen…

SHRI VIJAY KANAIYALAL SAVANI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/SRT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 148Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 651 & 652/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) (Virtual hearing) Shri Vijay Kanaiyalal Savani, I.T.O., Flat No. 402, Divyakranti Appt., Ward-1(3)(3), Vs. Althwalines, Parle Point, Surat. Surat. PAN No. FZTPS 8203 L Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Tushar P Hemani, Senior Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, Advocate Respondent represented by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing 11/10/2022 Date of pronouncemen…

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

ANAND PERSHAD JAISWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3731/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…ee’s income in respect of undisclosed amount kept in foreign bank account cannot be added to the total income of the assessee when documents relied upon by the Revenue information was not replied from foreign banking authority. i. Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT 188 TTJ 404 (Del. Trib.) ii. DCIT vs Rahul Rajnikant Parikh (ITAT Mumbai Dated 01.06.2018) iii. DCIT vs Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya (ITAT Mumbai Date 16.11.2018) iv. DCIT vs Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai Dated 19.06.2018) 21. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learne…

ANAND PERSHAD JAISWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3730/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…ee’s income in respect of undisclosed amount kept in foreign bank account cannot be added to the total income of the assessee when documents relied upon by the Revenue information was not replied from foreign banking authority. i. Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT 188 TTJ 404 (Del. Trib.) ii. DCIT vs Rahul Rajnikant Parikh (ITAT Mumbai Dated 01.06.2018) iii. DCIT vs Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya (ITAT Mumbai Date 16.11.2018) iv. DCIT vs Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai Dated 19.06.2018) 21. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learne…

SH. KARAMJIT S. JAIWSWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3248/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…ee’s income in respect of undisclosed amount kept in foreign bank account cannot be added to the total income of the assessee when documents relied upon by the Revenue information was not replied from foreign banking authority. i. Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT 188 TTJ 404 (Del. Trib.) ii. DCIT vs Rahul Rajnikant Parikh (ITAT Mumbai Dated 01.06.2018) iii. DCIT vs Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya (ITAT Mumbai Date 16.11.2018) iv. DCIT vs Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai Dated 19.06.2018) 21. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learne…

SH. KARAMJIT S. JAIWSWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3247/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…ee’s income in respect of undisclosed amount kept in foreign bank account cannot be added to the total income of the assessee when documents relied upon by the Revenue information was not replied from foreign banking authority. i. Shyam Sunder Jindal vs ACIT 188 TTJ 404 (Del. Trib.) ii. DCIT vs Rahul Rajnikant Parikh (ITAT Mumbai Dated 01.06.2018) iii. DCIT vs Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya (ITAT Mumbai Date 16.11.2018) iv. DCIT vs Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai Dated 19.06.2018) 21. He accordingly submitted that both legally and factually, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learne…

PARAG DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 5499/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2006-07 Parag Dalmia, Dcit, Central Circle-26, A-238, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Vs. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi. Pan : Aaapd3725B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Verma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…t have any signature of bank official or name of the bank or the place or the country were the branch was situated. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. ACIT reported in 81 Taxmann.com 123 (Del). In his 3rd alternate contention, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted 18. that a perusal of the 7 pages received under DTAA confirms that none of the client profile reflecting outstanding bank balance is in the name of Parag Dalmia or his family members. The outstanding bank balance is only shown in the name of Asprey Worldwi…

SH. SANJAY DALMIA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…further referred to the decision of Pigam Impex Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT ITA No. 4787 to 4791/Del/2013 dated 6.02.2014, Pushpa Garg Vs. ACIT ITA No. 4852 to 4855/Del/2013 dated 06.02.2014, Viswanath Garodia Vs. DCIT 76 Taxmaann. Com 81, Shyam Sunder Jindal Vs. ACIT 81 Taxmann.com 123, LKG Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2017 TIOL-1242-ITAT-Del dated 29.08.2017, for deletion of penalty. d. He further raised an issue that there is no specific provision for issue of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act in search proceedings and therefore, no penalty can be levied for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. He submitted a deta…

Shyam Sunder Jindal v. ACIT (81 Taxmann.com 123) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax