Surendra S. Gupta v. ACIT

170 ITD 732Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#23061 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2023.

Judgments citing Surendra S. Gupta v. ACIT

Chawla Jewellers, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. I. P. Bansal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek K. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 69

…T [2002] 123 Taxman 464 (J&K) b) CIT vs. Pratapsingh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh & Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Rajasthan) c) Smt. Sita Bai Khetan vs. ITO [2017] 88 taxmann.com 377 (Jaipur - Trib.) d) Surendra S. Gupta vs. Addl. CIT [2018] 93 taxmann.com 456/170 ITD 732 (Mum. - Trib.) e) ITO vs. LGW Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 68 (Kol. - Trib.)  With regard to the addition of Rs.3,35,846/-, the assessee submitted that they are maintaining one account of 22KT gold jewellery which includes 22KT gold polki jewellery as well as 22KT gold jewellery. It can be seen from the table reproduced above that combined weight…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…mbai Vs. ITO [2013] 144 ITD 427 (Mum. Trib) • John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT I.T.A No. 7545/Mum/2014(Mum Trib) • Sita Baikhetan Vs. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 0549: (2016) 142 DTR 0122: (2016) 050 ITR (Trib)0196(Jaipur-Trib) • Surendra S. Gupta Vs. ACIT(2018) 170 ITD 732 (Mum Trib) • Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B) (2010) 38 DTR 19(Pune)(Trib) • Krishna Enterprises Vs. ACIT(2017) 146 DTR 73(Mum Trib) • ITO Vs. LGW Limited (Kol. Trib) (ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 dt. 07/10/2015 15.3 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no justification in sustaining the addition made by the AO on ac…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…mbai Vs. ITO [2013] 144 ITD 427 (Mum. Trib) • John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT I.T.A No. 7545/Mum/2014(Mum Trib) • Sita Baikhetan Vs. ITO (2016) 181 TTJ 0549: (2016) 142 DTR 0122: (2016) 050 ITR (Trib)0196(Jaipur-Trib) • Surendra S. Gupta Vs. ACIT(2018) 170 ITD 732 (Mum Trib) • Rahul Constructions Vs. DCIT(Pune Trib. Bench B) (2010) 38 DTR 19(Pune)(Trib) • Krishna Enterprises Vs. ACIT(2017) 146 DTR 73(Mum Trib) • ITO Vs. LGW Limited (Kol. Trib) (ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 dt. 07/10/2015 15.3 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no justification in sustaining the addition made by the AO on ac…

Surendra S. Gupta v. ACIT (170 ITD 732) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax