163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali v. CIT

154 ITR 591High Court1985#12210 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 43AASection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 256speculation losssection 43(5)section 43asummons under section 131section 35(2ab)mercantile system of accountingaddition u/s 68service of noticesection 115jbsection 43section 37(1)

Judgments citing 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali v. CIT

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3579/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted invoices or bills in support of the sales. In this regard,…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2) New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3578/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted invoices or bills in support of the sales. In this regard,…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT Range 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted invoices or bills in support of the sales. In this regard,…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. Addl CIT Rang 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3576/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…them but Assessing Officer failed to cross examine the same. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions :- (i) CIT vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. – 163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali vs. CIT – 334 ITR 370; and (iii) Jhaveri Bihari Lal & Co. vs. CIT – 154 ITR 591. 21. On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue brought to our notice para 6.7 of the assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has given clear-cut findings. Therefore, he relied on the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that even the assessee has not submitted invoices or bills in support of the sales. In this regard,…

Madan Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 2954/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihari Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6590E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 54

…n to establish the source of the funds in the account of vendee was not on the assessee. In holding that the bur den was on the assessee, she has ignored the law' laid down by the Patna High Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Bihari Lai & Co. vs. CIT reported in 154 ITR 591 at page 597. That in any case and without prejudice even such a burden which though was not on the assessee, was discharged by him which establishes beyond doubt the source of the funds of the vendee was the vendee’s own funds and not of the assessee. 12. That further the learned CIT (A) has also failed to comprehend that the assessee had dischar…

Hari Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi

ITA 2953/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihari Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6592G (Appellant) (Respondent) Madan Mohan Sharma, Vs. Acit, 60, Basti Harpool Singh, Circle-63(1), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aarps6590E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 54

…n to establish the source of the funds in the account of vendee was not on the assessee. In holding that the bur den was on the assessee, she has ignored the law' laid down by the Patna High Court in the case of Jhaverbhai Bihari Lai & Co. vs. CIT reported in 154 ITR 591 at page 597. That in any case and without prejudice even such a burden which though was not on the assessee, was discharged by him which establishes beyond doubt the source of the funds of the vendee was the vendee’s own funds and not of the assessee. 12. That further the learned CIT (A) has also failed to comprehend that the assessee had dischar…

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 6. Anis Ahmed V/s CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC) 7. CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom. HC) 8. Add. CIT V/s 1-lanuman Agarwal (1984) 151 ITR 150 (Patna HC) 9. Jhaver Bhai Bihar Lal & Co. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR (1985] 154 ITR 591/21 Taxman 238 10. CIT vs. Sahibqanj Electric Cables (P) Ltd. 11978115 ITR 4087 Thus, in view of the above discussion and respectfully following the judicial pronouncement, the addition made by AO on account of mere non reply by parties in response to notice u/s 133(6) is in my opinion not justified. However, the same time the facts emerge from t…

Design Core, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

…act that despite making a request to issue summons, no action was taken by him. Hence onus laid upon the assessee stood discharged and the claimed purchases therefore, must have been treated as genuine. Kindly refer Jhaver Bhai Bihari Lal & Co. v/s CIT (1985) 154 ITR 591 (Pat). It was held that cash credit – refusal by ITO to issue summon u/s 131 – revenue’s onus whether discharged – certificate creditor produced – law enjoins the issuance of summons in case certificate purported to have been granted by such creditors are produced before AO. Also kindly refer Vijeta Cement Pvt. Ltd. v/s JCIT (2000) 24 TW 223 (JP)…

163 Taxman 482; (ii) Faiz Murtza Ali v. CIT (154 ITR 591) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax