How many judgments cite Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT?

186 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (231 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 1961), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 68.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1High Court1998#512 most cited

What is Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT authority for?

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

186

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT · Prabhavati S. Shah · admission of additional evidence · Rule 46A Income Tax Rules · CIT(A) appellate powers · Section 250 Income Tax Act · Section 251 Income Tax Act · production of additional evidence · undue hardship justice · true state of affairs · Appellate Assistant Commissioner powers

Also reported as

100 Taxmann 404

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 1961)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 68 Section 250 Section 1962

Issues it is cited on

section 250(4)admission of additional evidence source of source shell company rule 46a section 246 section 41 addition under section 68 principal commissioner of income-tax section 251 share application money documents seized

Judgments citing Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Pukhraj S. Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2010-11 Ito-16(1)(3), Shri Pukhraj S. Jain, R. No.220, 2Nd Floor, 8, Ground Flr, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Tardeo Rd. Guru Rajendra House, Vs. Mumbai-400007 135 Trimbak Parshuram St. 6Th Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aajpj8080C

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…w. Our view is fortified by the decision and ratio laid down therein in CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati) and Byramji & Company Vs. CIT 11 ITR 286 (Nagpur), CIT Vs. P.S. Jain & Company Ltd 322 ITR 320 (Del.), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) So far as invoking section 41 of the Act is concerned. The assessee has explained the reasons for making the payments which were on account of lack of funds and further the assessee established that the creditors to the tune of Rs. 1.54 crores out of Rs. 1.79 crores were actually paid in later years and further demonstrated that the liabili…

M/S Independent School'S Federation of India, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5099/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2010-11 Independent School’S Federation Of India Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1 C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Ghaziabad Chamber No. 206-207, Ansal “Satnam” Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad (Pan : Aaatt4223R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 37(1)

…d 19.12.2008. C. Legal issue can be raised at any time. Power of CIT(A) are co-terminus with AO to conduct enquiry. i) NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Raj Rani Gulati (Smt.) vs. CIT (2002) 346 ITR 543 (All.) iii) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) Finally, he requested that the issue in dispute may be set aside to the AO to decide the same, keeping in view of the decisions as well as Written Submission alongwith documentary evidence filed in the shape of Paper Book. 5. Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the Assessee and relied upon the orders of the Authorities below.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…that the ld CIT(A) has already forwarded the additional evidences to the AO and therefore compliance of Rule 46A(3) has been made. In support of his claim, the ld AR placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Prabhavati Shah Vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), CIT Vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (2014) 367 ITR 692(Guj), Electra Jaipur P Ltd Vs. Inspecting ACIT (1988) 26 ITD 236(Del), CIT Vs. Jagjot Singh(2014)41taxman.com423(All), CIT Vs Unique Plastics P Ltd (2015) 60 Taxman.com ( AP& T), Jer Kersi Contractor V ITO Mum Trib ITA No. 1892/Mum/2009. 8. We have heard the rival submission and peruse…

Mahalaxmi Bullions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6036/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E ’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.6036 & 6037 /Del/2014 Assessment years : 20011-2012 & 2012-2013 Mahalaxmi Bullions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CC-22, 1167/1172, Shop No.218, New Delhi 11nd Floor, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi GIR / PAN:AAGSC,4162J I.T.A.Nos/6033, 6034 & 6035/Del/2014 (Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2011-2012 & 2012-2013) North Delhi Bullion Trades Pvt .Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CC-22, 1164, Basaement Shop No.7, New Delhi Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi GIR / PAN: AADCN0380L…

North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6033/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

Sayed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2807/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2807 & 2808/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Syed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2, बनाम/ 705, Sea Creast No. 2, Mumbai J. P. Road, Seven Bunglows, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 061 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abvpn 7551 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms.Kadambari Dave सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.09.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Assessee, An Individual, Is A Mumbai Based Interior Designer. He, Along With His Wife, Muskan Naqvi, Was Subject To Search Action U/S.132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Investigation Wing (Mumbai) Of The Revenue At Their Residence, On 05.01.2007, As A Part Of The Search Operations On Hasan Ali Khan (Hak) Group. The Case Was Subsequently Centralized With Central Circle-2, Mumbai On 20.03.2007 & Assessment For The Different Years Framed U/S.153A R/W S. 143(3) Of The Act. We Are In These Appeals Concerned With The Assessments For Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Made Vide Assessment Orders Dated 31.12.2008

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &

Section 132Section 153A

…merely for the reason that the first one was found as not valid. It is open for the Revenue to adjudicate the same on merits, rejecting the subsequent explanation as well. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom). The legal maxim of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, as explained by the higher courts, cannot be considered to have the status of a rule of law, much less an inflexible one, but is only a rule of caution. In fact, as explained in Ugar Ahir vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277, 279, it is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Th…