2.25 In Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT

276 ITR 549High Court2005#2084 most cited

What is 2.25 In Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT authority for?

For Section 69 to be applied, the Assessing Officer must first establish that the assessee made investments not recorded in the books of account, then seek an explanation, and only if unsatisfactory, can the investment be added as income.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT · Section 69 · unexplained investment · unrecorded investment · books of account · addition · Assessing Officer · Section 69A · Section 69C · explanation called for

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 69CSection 132Section 144Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

addition u/s 68share application moneyaccommodation entrysection 69centry operatorunexplained investmentsection 69complete scrutinysection 68section 132(4)commissioner (appeals)section 133(6)

Judgments citing 2.25 In Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT

ITO Ward- 2(1)(2), Ghaziabad vs. Deepak Matta, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand allowed in very above terms

ITA 4516/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Income Tax Officer, Vs. Deepak Matta, Room No. 324, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 5, Golden Cgo Complex-I, Hapur Residency, Ahinsa Chungi, Khand-Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201301 Ghaziabad-201014 9Pan: Aezpm7789R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69A

…he owner of the sums so credited. Moreover, entire credits in the bank account were recorded and reconciled with the appellant's books of accounts, submitted during the assessment proceedings. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CTC (2005) Reported in 276 ITR 549 Orissa High Court held that for applying Section 69, the Assessing Officer must first come to a finding that the assessee made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and thereafter call for an explanation from the assessee about the nature and source of the investments and if he finds that no such explanation was furnished by…

Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad vs. Deepak Matta, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the Revenue appeals stand allowed in very above terms

ITA 3251/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Income Tax Officer, Vs. Deepak Matta, Room No. 324, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 5, Golden Cgo Complex-I, Hapur Residency, Ahinsa Chungi, Khand-Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201301 Ghaziabad-201014 9Pan: Aezpm7789R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69A

…he owner of the sums so credited. Moreover, entire credits in the bank account were recorded and reconciled with the appellant's books of accounts, submitted during the assessment proceedings. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CTC (2005) Reported in 276 ITR 549 Orissa High Court held that for applying Section 69, the Assessing Officer must first come to a finding that the assessee made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and thereafter call for an explanation from the assessee about the nature and source of the investments and if he finds that no such explanation was furnished by…

DCIT - CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

…had already been confirmed in the hands of the beneficiary entities, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained in principle. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549), holding that section 69 can be invoked only where investments are not recorded in the books. However, the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correct quantum of investments reflected in the assessee's books, particularly in respect of M/s First Winner Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bhagwat Textiles Pvt. Ltd., and to adopt the correc…

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…nt. Details of payees are included in appellant's books and A.O. has not given any specific finding regarding any bogus sales made to Divyanshi Sales Corporation and M/s Shiva Trading Company. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CTC (2005) Reported in 276 ITR 549 Orissa High Court held that, for applying Section 69, the Assessing Officer must first come to a finding that the assessee made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and thereafter call for an explanation from the assessee about the nature and source of the investments and if he finds that no such explanation was furnished by…

Bhaskar Chouhan, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sikar

ITA 533/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…nt. Details of payees are included in appellant's books and A.O. has not given any specific finding regarding any bogus sales made to Divyanshi Sales Corporation and M/s Shiva Trading Company. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CTC (2005) Reported in 276 ITR 549 Orissa High Court held that, for applying Section 69, the Assessing Officer must first come to a finding that the assessee made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and thereafter call for an explanation from the assessee about the nature and source of the investments and if he finds that no such explanation was furnished by…

Unnikrishnan, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward-2, Palakkad

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

ITA 358/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 4Section 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member & Shri Soundararajan K, Judicial Member ITA No.358/Coch/2024 :Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Unnikrishnan Vadakkanthra The Income Tax Officer 42/432 Kannaki Nagar Ward 2 v. Palakkad. Vadakkanthra Palakkad – 678012. PAN : ACQPU0810J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sivadas Chettoor, CA Respondent by :Smt.Girly Albert, Sr.DR Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2024 Date of Hearing : 26.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC/CIT(A), dated 21.02.2024 i…

Income-Tax Officer, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad vs. Kamleshbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 127/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

…law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath 35 ITR 416 (SC) held that when an amount is credited in business books, it is not an unreasonable inference to draw that it is a receipt from business. In the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores 276 ITR 549 (Orissa), the High Court held that for applying section 69 of the Act, the Assessing Officer must first ITO vs. Kamleshbhai Prajapati Asst.Year –2017-18 - 7– come to a finding that the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and thereafter call for an explanation from the assessee about the nature and source o…

Mr. Chhitar Singh Bhikaji, Khandwa vs. ITO-1 Khandwa, Khandwa

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Chhitar Singh Bhikaji Ito-1 Village-Sihada Khandwa Vs. Tah.- Khandwa Dist- Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Frhps 0744 A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2023

Section 139Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69

…essee is having no other source of income then the source of deposit explained by the assessee cannot be rejected. The decisions relied upon by the assessee are as under: a. CIT vs. P.K. Noorjahan (smt.) 237 ITR 570 (SC) b. Aurobindo Sanitary Stores vs. CTC 276 ITR 549 (Orissa) Thus the assessee contended that addition made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act is not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has referred to the statement of the assessee recorded by the AO which is reproduced in the assessment order and submitted that the assessee himself had admitted the facts that he has no documentary evidence to pr…

Anshu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 45/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

…revenue, it would certainly have an impact on the closing cash in hand of the preceding assessment year, which has attained finality.” 18 Anshu Sharma vs. ITO 2.7 Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores V. CTC (2005) Reported in 276 ITR 549 (Ori) which is a unique judgement on Section 69, which has made the clarity of section 69 in a very ameliorated manner. The relevant abstract of the judgement is reproduced herewith: “For, applying Section 69, the Assessing Officer must first come to a finding that the assessee made investments which are not recorded in the books of account and…

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Sudama Textiles Tradings P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Room No. 4, Shivram Patel Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Chowk, Hanuman Nagar, Kurar Mumbai-400021. Village, Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaocs 4200 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 DCIT-CC-3(2), Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Room No. 4, Shivram Patel Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Chowk, Hanuman Nagar, Kurar Mumbai-400021. Village, Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. PAN No. AAOCS 4200 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 18/10/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed agains…

DCIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5704/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5704/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalkalash Trading Dcit Cc– 3(2), Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, Air बिधम/ F-702, Nandanvan Chs Ltd. India Building, Nariman Vs. Link Road, Kandivali(W), Point, Mumbai-40 021 Mumbai400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafcm8158F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ii) the assessee offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It is relevant to note that both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held 5 I.T.A. No. 5704/Mum/2018 M/s Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd. that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the AO that the investments are not recorded in the regular books. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the said amount of investment of Rs 6…

DCIT- CC- 3(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Geeta Gopal Synthetic P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2121/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Dcit-Cc 3(2), Mumbai Vs Geeta Gopal Synthetic P Ltd Central Range-3, Room No.1913, 111/113, Sindh Cloth Market Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 Mumbai 064 Pan : Aaacg5401A Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) & KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs Geeta Gopal Synthetic P Ltd Central Range-3, Room No.1913, 111/113, Sindh Cloth Market Air India Building, Nariman Point, Vithalwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 Mumbai 064 PAN : AAACG5401A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by None Department represented by Shri Ashok Koli – (CIT DR) Date of hearing 01/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/08/2022 ORDER Per Kavitha Rajagopal (JM): This appeal has been filed by the Revenue as against the ord…

DCIT CC3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 999/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…hat both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be s has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking atisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the the prov…

DCIT CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Alankit Exports Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2117/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…hat both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be s has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking atisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the the prov…

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2116/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…hat both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be s has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking atisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the the prov…

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2115/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…hat both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be s has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking atisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the the prov…

DCIT-CC 3(2), Mumbai vs. Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed b

ITA 2114/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Attractive Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3901 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 Alankit Exports Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India 36, 2Nd Floor, 67 Bhuleshwar Tank Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Building, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aahca 3902 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Central Range-3 M/S Angarika Multitrading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Shop No. 4, Tapovan View Chs Ltd., Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Pathan Wadi, Malad (E)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 69C

…hat both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be s has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking atisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the the prov…

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Vishnu Textile Trade P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 2120/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vishnu Textile Trade P. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) A-21, Dhiraj Apatment, Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Poddar Road, Malad (E), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabck6554H Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Mezanine Office No.2 Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Sujata Chambers, Vs. Nariman Point, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccv1777G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…ii) the assessee offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It is relevant to note that both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the AO that the investments are not recorded in the regular books. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the said amount of Vishnu Textile Trade Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12; Varad Vinayank Textiles Pvt. Ltd; A.Y.…

DCIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 1877/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vishnu Textile Trade P. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) A-21, Dhiraj Apatment, Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Poddar Road, Malad (E), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 064 Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabck6554H Varad Vinayak Textiles Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Central Circle 3(2) Mezanine Office No.2 Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Sujata Chambers, Vs. Nariman Point, Narshi Natha Street, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 064 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaccv1777G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…ii) the assessee offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It is relevant to note that both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the AO that the investments are not recorded in the regular books. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the said amount of Vishnu Textile Trade Pvt. Ltd; A.Y. 11-12; Varad Vinayank Textiles Pvt. Ltd; A.Y.…

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Sudama Textiles Tradings P Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Dcit – Central Circle -3(2) V. Sudama Textiles Trading’S Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 4, Shivram Patel Chowk Room No. 1913 Hanuman Nagar, Kurar Village Air India Building Malad (E), Mumbai - 400064 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaocs4200K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Shri Hemant Chimanlal Leuva Department By Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2021

For Appellant: None
Section 6Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ii) the assessee offers no explanation about the source or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It is relevant to note that both these conditions are to be cumulatively satisfied. The Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary Stores (276 ITR 549) has held that the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 69 is that there should be a finding of the AO that the investments are not recorded in the regular books. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the said amount of investment is duly recorded in the regular books of accounts. The source of an in…