Sugamchand C. Shat v. ACIT

37 DTR 345Reported decision#24695 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing Sugamchand C. Shat v. ACIT

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…ctional ITAT were not considered by Ld. CIT(A): (1) V. Nagesh v/s A CTT 1721 No. 54101Mum/2008 (2) Smt. Sadhana Navera v/s ACJT25(3) IN 1721 No. 25861Murn/2009 (e) The decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Sugamchand C. Shat v/s ACIT reported In 37 DTR 345 was also not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). (f) The observations that the assessee earned huge dividend income was not 10 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa factually correct for the reason that earning of dividend F&O 12.85 lakhs was only incidental to share holdings of the assessee, which Is valued at cost to be Rs. 11.63 crores. The dividend on such holdin…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…ctional ITAT were not considered by Ld. CIT(A): (1) V. Nagesh v/s A CTT 1721 No. 54101Mum/2008 (2) Smt. Sadhana Navera v/s ACJT25(3) IN 1721 No. 25861Murn/2009 (e) The decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Sugamchand C. Shat v/s ACIT reported In 37 DTR 345 was also not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). (f) The observations that the assessee earned huge dividend income was not 10 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa factually correct for the reason that earning of dividend F&O 12.85 lakhs was only incidental to share holdings of the assessee, which Is valued at cost to be Rs. 11.63 crores. The dividend on such holdin…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…ctional ITAT were not considered by Ld. CIT(A): (1) V. Nagesh v/s A CTT 1721 No. 54101Mum/2008 (2) Smt. Sadhana Navera v/s ACJT25(3) IN 1721 No. 25861Murn/2009 (e) The decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Sugamchand C. Shat v/s ACIT reported In 37 DTR 345 was also not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). (f) The observations that the assessee earned huge dividend income was not 10 Smt. Sarah Faisal Hawa factually correct for the reason that earning of dividend F&O 12.85 lakhs was only incidental to share holdings of the assessee, which Is valued at cost to be Rs. 11.63 crores. The dividend on such holdin…

Sugamchand C. Shat v. ACIT (37 DTR 345) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax