Smt. Farzana F. Desai v. ACIT

14 DTR 552Reported decision#13390 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing Smt. Farzana F. Desai v. ACIT

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 520/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur

ITA 519/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 408/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 295/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 294/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 293/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

…basis. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. 29 DTR 325 as well as decision in the case of Smt. Farzana F. Desai vs. ACIT, 14 DTR 552 and submitted that when the AO has finally made the assessment on protective basis then in the absence of any positive or substantive satisfaction, the reopening of the assessment is bad. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the AO has analyzed the seized materials as per Annexure-AS and also considered the statement of Shri M…

Smt. Farzana F. Desai v. ACIT (14 DTR 552) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax