1) Sethi Cotton Traders v. ITO

236 CTR 192Reported decision2010#17314 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing 1) Sethi Cotton Traders v. ITO

Sri Nilesh N Shah, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-8, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1998/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Shashidhar N.S., Addl.CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.1998/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2009-2010 Sri. Nilesh N.Shah The Addl.Commissioner of No.37/2 B, K.S.Garden, 4th Cross Income-tax, Range 8 v. Bangalore. Lalbag Road Bangalore – 560 027 PAN : AHQPS3453C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Shashidhar N.S., Addl.CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 04.08.2021 Date of Hearing : 04.08.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s…

Ratanlal Batra, Raigarh(C.G) vs. I.T.O. Ward -1, Raigarh(Cg)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 203/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleshri Ratan Lal Batra, Vs. Ito, Raigarh, C.G. Ward – 1 Raigarh, C.G. Pan-Addpb5567D

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…Tax Returns of the assessee and as well as that of the creditors. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision in the case of Khushal Prasad Manhar vs. ITO passed by the Tribunal, Bilaspur Bench and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court (2010) 236 CTR 192. However, the said decision does not apply in the present case as the facts in the said case was totally different. As in the said case of Khushal Prasad Manhar two separate deposits were made by individual assessee and in capacity of HUF by the assessee therein. In fact, the creditors therein filed their returns for the first time in 2005-06 and…

Jhadu Ram Gabel vs. I.T.O.-2, Raigarh(Cg)

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

ITA 201/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 201/RPR/2014 (A.Y 2010-11) Jhandu Ram Gabel, Vs ITO-2, M/s Bhagwati Rice Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, Nawapara, Chakardhar Nagar, Raigarh (CG). Raigarh. PAN – AEXPG7649J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri G.S Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri D.K. Jain, DR Date of Hearing 08.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement 23.10.2018 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A), Bilaspur dated 24.03.2014 for the A.Y 2…

Yami Associates, Rajnandgaon vs. I.T.O.-1, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Yami Associates, The Income Tax Officer-I, Yalsco Carrier Building, F.C.I. Road, Near Raipur Naka, Ridhi Sidhi Colony, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Vs. Pan: Aaafy7073P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri D.K. Jain (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Jain (DR)

Section 143

…lls and vouchers, reasonable addition can be made out of partial disallowance of expenses, though books of accounts are audited and auditor has not made any adverse comment as held in Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CIT 246 ITR 116, Shri Khushal Prasad Manhar Vs. CIT 236 CTR 192, Asstt CIT vs. Agility Logistics P. Ltd. (2012) 19 taxman. Com 159/136 ITD 46 (Mum), ACIT vs. Niko Resources Ltd. (2009) 123 TT] (Ahd) 310, etc. The appellant has paid commission of Rs. 46,07,172/- and incurred travelling expenses of Rs. 3,55,035/-. The necessary documents proving services rendered by the commission agents, tickets, conveyance a…

M/S. Adhar Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 228/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Patra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 68

…account and for failure, the same is assessed as deemed income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act. In support of his contention, the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: 1) Sethi Cotton Traders vs ITO, 286 itr 548. 2) Shri Khushal Prasad Manhar vs CIT, 236 CTR 192. 3) ITO vs. Blessing Construction, 32 taxmann.366. 5. Before, ld Authorised Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was required to prove the source of credit in his books of account and not the source of source. He submitted that the source of deposit of Rs.14 l…