1. CIT v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 2009 TIOL 660-HC-DEL-IT 2. Motamal Jethumal Vs CIT

15 ITR 155Reported decision1947#19211 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 2009 TIOL 660-HC-DEL-IT 2. Motamal Jethumal Vs CIT

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax - Delhi 04 vs. Nikon Systems Pvt Ltd

ITA - 686 / 2023HC Delhi05 Dec 2023

Bench: The Statutory Authorities, Even According To Mr Sanjeev Menon, Learned Standing Counsel, Who Appears On Behalf Of The Appellant/Revenue, Concerns The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao) With Regard To Loss Claimed By The Digitally Signed By:Tarun Rana Signing Date:29.12.2023 19:09:59 Signature Not Verified

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n FIR was lodged on 15.12.2014. 11. Furthermore, the Tribunal also had regard to the judgement relied of the respondent/assessee that the destruction of stock-in-trade resulted a revenue loss. [See Motamal Jethamal v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1947) 15 ITR 155.] 12. Mr Menon, in support of the appeal, has relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) that this was a case where no evidence was produced concerning the fire incident; a fact which would have been demonstrable had correspondence, if any, exchanged with the concerned insurance company been placed on record. Digitally Signed By:TARUN RA…

Nikon Systems Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground number one and two is allowed

ITA 6115/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishinikon Systems Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Circle-18(2), Extn. Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 143Section 234ASection 29

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT, C/o. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Circle-18(2), Extn. Part-1, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/02/2020 Date of pronouncement 15/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 28.06.2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raise…

Denis Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the ITA No

ITA 1680/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Capt. Prasad S. Arya (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar (AR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1680/Mum/2011 for AY - 2006-07 Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd. ACIT Circle- 8(1), Unit No. 2 B, Unit No. 10, Aayakar Bhavan, Mittal Industrial Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059 PAN: AAACD5065H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 989/Mum/2013 for AY - 2006-07 Denis Exports Pvt. Ltd. Jt.CIT (OSD) Range- 8(1), Unit No. 2 B, Unit No. 1, Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Vs. (E), Mumbai-400059 PAN: AAACD5065H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by…

ITO vs. Sri. Kamlesh Shanthilal Oswal Jain

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

ITA 883/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri L.Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Praveena, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…akhs due to fire accident as claimed by the assessee. 5. On the contrary, learned AR of the assessee also drawn our attention to the judgment of the following case laws; 1. CIT Vs Relaxo Footwears Ltd., 2009 TIOL 660-HC-DEL-IT 2. Motamal Jethumal Vs CIT s 15 ITR 155 By referring the aforesaid judgment and also the orders passed by the authorities below, tried to establish that its case is genuine, because the fire actually taken place in the premises which belonged to the assessee. The assessee has also filed the 10 ITA No.883 (B)/2013 revised return of VAT under VAT no.115 therefore; the appeal of the r…