Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills & Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC), CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

341 ITR 235High Court2012#24716 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2018.

Judgments citing Sir Shadilal Sugar General Mills & Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC), CIT v. Somany Evergree Knits Ltd.

SHRI VISHNU KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: None (Written submissions)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ferred as many as 20 decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:- • CIT vs. Filterex Technologies P. Ltd 380 ITR 222 (Karn). • CIT vs. PH State Forest Corporation Ltd. 340 ITR 204 (H.P.) • CIT vs. S.L.N. Traders (no.2) 341 ITR 235 (Karn) • CIT vs. Sangeeta Leasing 343 ITR 428 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Sadhu Singh & Sons 344 ITR 316 (P &H) • CIT vs. Lakhani Footwear Ltd. 347 ITR 478 (P &H) • Mehsons Export Vs. ITO 347 ITR 639 (All) • Price Water House Coopers pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) • CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 (Delhi) • CIT vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. 352 ITR 394 (P &H) 3 Vi…

AJAY KUMAR BAID,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5946/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2008 - 2009 Ajay Kumar Baid Income Tax Officer 14(3)(1) 1St Floor, Chandra Mahal, Mumbai बनाम/ 241, Princess Street, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue P.A. No. Aaapb5350N

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

…ng of inaccurate particular of income, resulting into concealment of such income, therefore, being on different facts, the decision relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. 8. In the case of CIT & Anors. Vs S.L. N. Traders (2012) 341 ITR 235, the explanation of the assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. Whereas, in the present appeal, the ld. Assessing Officer, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. 9. Now, we shall deal with the case, in the case of MAK DATA P. LTD. vs. COMMISS…

KUMAR V. VASANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 32(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…nt appeal, as discussed above, there is conscious concealment of income by the assessee, therefore, being on different facts, the decision relied upon is not applicable to the facts of the present appeal. In the case of CIT & Anors. Vs S.L. N. Traders (2012) 341 ITR 235, the explanation of the assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) as well as by the Tribunal. Whereas, in the present appeal, the ld. Assessing Officer, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal has not accepted the explanation of the assessee. In that case, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer submitting that th…