Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

88 ITR 232Supreme Court of India1973#7607 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionsection 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual letting valuesection 245d(4)section 131(1)annual valueincome tax settlement commissionsection 65bsection 65on-moneyloose papers

Judgments citing Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT

M/S CHEEMA BOILERS LTD.,,MOHALI vs. PR. CIT-2, MOHALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 748/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 748/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 36Section 40

…any inquiry or verification which should have been made during the assessment proceedings . The ld. PCIT has also brought on record many case laws such as the case of the Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 232 (SC) . 13. We have considered all these judgements particularly the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT’ (supra) vs. CIT and ‘’Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (supra) and we are of this considered view that the order passed u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT is well within the ambit of section 263 and we find no i…

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

…eturn and failed to make any inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In this regard, the judicial precedents are relied upon as held in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT, (1988) 67 ITR 84(SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal v. C1T, (1973) 88 ITR 232(SC), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl.C1T, (1975) 991TR 375 386(Del).” 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(E) before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings specifically enquired about the applicability of section 2(15) and directed the AR of the assessee to file a reply in th…

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

…eturn and failed to make any inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In this regard, the judicial precedents are relied upon as held in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT, (1988) 67 ITR 84(SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal v. C1T, (1973) 88 ITR 232(SC), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl.C1T, (1975) 991TR 375 386(Del).” 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(E) before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings specifically enquired about the applicability of section 2(15) and directed the AR of the assessee to file a reply in th…

ITO NCW10(3), CHENNAI vs. M/S LAKSHMI BRICK INDUSTRIES, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 945/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 945/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sri Lakshmi Brick Non Corporate Ward 10(3), V. Industries, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, No. 2/34, M.H. Road, Chennai- 600 034. Red Hills, Chennai – 600 052. [Pan: Abjfs-6851-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023

For Respondent: Shri. R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 80I

…ndividual hands, addition in the hands of the firm is not warranted. However, fact remains that right income should be assessed in the hands of right person is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) and S.P Jaiswal vs CIT (224 ITR 619). The ld. DR, further submitted that the CIT(A) erred in following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bankipur Club Ltd (supra), without appreciating fact that said case was that of principle of mutuality applicable to members of the club, whereas, the facts in this case is transfer of asset by firm to partners. The Ld. CIT(A) erre…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e above, it is quite clear that the AO had passed a stereotyped order, and make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. The order is s in view of the decisions in Rampyari Devi V. CIT 1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara 'garwal V. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 (SC). He failed to make necessary enquiry. The order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue in view of decisions in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC). The assessing Officer had accepted assessee’s submission without examining the points discussed above.Thus , the AO failed to make necessary enquiry which was expected of him befor…

ACIT - 17(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ANAND JAIKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 3823/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found from the premises of third party can be relied upon for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus,…

ACIT - 17(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ANAND JAIKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 3822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found from the premises of third party can be relied upon for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus,…

ACIT - 17(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ANAND JAIKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 3821/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found from the premises of third party can be relied upon for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus,…

ACIT - 17(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI ANAND JAIKUMAR JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 3820/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh
Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…: - a. CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan [2018] 404 ITR 433 (Madras) b. Smt Dayawanti v. CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Del.) c. Smt. Vasantibai N. Shah v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 805 (Bombay). d. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) e. S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1973] 224 ITR 619 (SC) 14. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the real issue to be decided in the present case is not as to whether the seized documents are meticulous or complete. The real issue to be decided is as to whether the documents found from the premises of third party can be relied upon for making the addition in the hands of the assessee. Thus,…

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…f CIT vs. Shree Manjuathesware Trading Products and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, that the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 232 hasf held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of t…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…ducts and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of th…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…ducts and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of th…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…ducts and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of th…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…ducts and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the revisionary power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 232 has held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but also where it is a stereotyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of th…

DCIT CIR. 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NINA BHADRASHYAM KOTHARI, MUMBAI

ITA 2343/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2343/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2344/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-Circle-3(3)(1) Smt. Nina Bhadrashyam Kothari Room No.609, 6Th Floor 39, Seawind, Cuffe Parade, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Aahpk 5415 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: S/Shri Abhijit Patankar & V. Vidhyadhar-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28/03/2018 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार- Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 29/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-8, Mumbai,The Assessing Officer(Ao) Has Filed Present Appeal.The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Director Of M/S. Spellbound Trading Pvt. Ltd. Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessments & Assessed Incomes Can Be Tabulated As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: S/Shri Abhijit Patankar & V. Vidhyadhar-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…taxed in the right hands and in the right assessment years,that owning of income by her husband no excuse for not assessing the income in the hands of the assessee.He referred to the cases of Ch.Atchaiah(218 ITR 239),Sirram Jagannath(250 ITR 689),S P Jaiswal (224 ITR 619).The Authorised Representative(AR)stated that same income could not be taxed in two hands,that department had assessed the disputed income in the hands of the husband of the assessee,that there was no justification in assessing the same income in her hands.He referred to the case of Ch.Atchaiah (supra). 2343&2344/M/16- Smt. Nina Bhadrashyam Koth…

Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 232) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax