29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO

77 ITR 449High Court#21485 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2019.

Judgments citing 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO

SHRI SHESHDHAR DUBEY,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1522/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1522/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.DR

Section 254

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1522/AHD/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Sheshdhar Dubey, ITO, Prop. Globe Carrying Corporation, Vs. Ward-5(2), E-2, Sheshtal Apartment, Baroda. Nr.Utkarsh Petrol Pump, Karelibaug, Vadodara. PAN: ACSPD2320G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hardik Vora, A.R Revenue by : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 06/12/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 01/01/20…

ACIT CIR, 31 (1) ROOM NO. 217, NEW DELHI vs. RNGS CONSORTIUM, NEW DELHI

In the result ITA No. 153/Del/2009 is dismissed

ITA 2238/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiasst Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Rngs Consortium, Tax, 8, Aradhana Colony, Circle-31(1), Cr Building, Ip Sector-13, Rk Puram, New Estate, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. M/S. Expotec International Circle-11(1), Ltd, 8, Aradhana Colony, Rk New Delhi Puram, Sector-13, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…was not verifiable. Instead of adopting this accepted approach if an AO resorts to the convenient approach of rejecting the books of accounts, in total, such action would be illegal and against the tenets of Law." Also in the case of C.M. Francis & co (P) Ltd 77 ITR 449 (Ker.) and in the case of Emran Ahmed [1982] Tax LR (NOC) 111 (All.) it was held, “that on account of mere absence of vouchers to substantiate entries for accounts, the account in total cannot be rejected.". 29. As regards the allegation of the assessing officer that the appellant consortium ought to have shown the gross amount receivable as per c…

PRADEEP KUMAR HIMMATRAMKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 140/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR

Section 145(3)Section 54B

…assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.) (2009)316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) 4. CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [77 ITR 449] (Ker) 5. Asstt. CIT v. L.M.P. Tractors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 148 Taxman 52 (Mag.) (Ahemdabad) Conclusively, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the lower authorities have wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. He further submitted that the results declared by the assessee may be accepted and the trading addition of Rs. 2,22,…

LAXMI NARAYAN HIMMATRAMKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 973/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT-. DR

Section 145(3)

…the assessee relied on following case laws:- 1. Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs.Asst. CIT (Raj.), 316 ITR 120 2. Haridas Parikh V ITO [2009] 29 SOT 13 (JODH.)(URO) 3. Ashok Kumar & Co. v. ITO [2004] 2 SOT 518 (Asr.) (SMC) 4. CM. Francis & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [77 ITR 449] (Kerala) 5. Asstt. CIT v. L.M.P. Tractors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 148 Taxman 52 (Mag.) (Ahmedabad ) 6. ACIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Choudhary [ITAT Jaipur Bench]: The accepted past history is the best guide and when the assessee has declared better results, the declared results to be accepted and no addition can be made therein. 7. CIT Vs. Jaimal Ram Kasturimal…