Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.17 seconds)
Ramesh L Jain (Huf), Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai on 13 March, 2019 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I vs Simit P on 16 January, 2013

In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations the A.O relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and quantified the profit element that the assessee would had made by carrying out purchases from undisclosed sources @ 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases of Rs. 3,86,87,972/-, resulting to a consequential addition of Rs. 48,35,997/- in the hands of the assessee.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 965 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax` vs Gulshan Kumar Luthra Huf on 28 February, 2019

Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(2016) 240 Taxman 133 (Bom). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to dispose off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(A) in the course of the set aside proceedings shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1