3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI

262 ITR 633High Court2003#1086 most cited

What is 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI authority for?

This case is cited for the proposition that oral admissions made during the course of a search can be considered as evidence.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni · 262 ITR 633 · HC · 2003 · oral admission · search and seizure · incriminating material · section 131(1) · section 131 · panchnama · section 153A · section 143(2) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 153ASection 234BSection 143(2) of the Income-tax ActSection 143(3) of the Income-tax ActSection 250 of the Income-tax ActSection 73 of the Income-tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 131(1)panchnamainterest under section 234bsection 234bsection 234section 131section 23incriminating materialsearch and seizuresection 153section 153asection 15

Judgments citing 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…n A.Y 2011-12 under an erroneous 45 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as per the Assessing Officer on-money has be…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…n A.Y 2011-12 under an erroneous 45 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as per the Assessing Officer on-money has be…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…or an acquiescence on the part of an assessee cannot be the foundation of assessment as held in various judicial pronouncements [Ref. Absalom v/s Talbot (1944) 26 Tax Cases 166, Abdul Qayumme v/s CIT- (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All), Mayank Poddar v/s. ITO - (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal), SAIL DSP Employees Association v/s UOI - (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Calutta). As evident, the addition made by the the Assessing Officer is simply based on the statement of some third party who later retracted his statement. Even this action of the Ld. AO is a seriously questionable since, it is a far too settled proposition of law that no additi…

The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Thane vs. ACIT Palghar Circle, Palghar, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4296/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 80P(2)(a)

…uld like to place reliance on the following decisions:- a. Decision of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayume vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 404 (All) b. Decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mayank Poddar vs. ITO reported in 262 ITR 633 (Cal) c. Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 262 ITR638 (Cal) 6.6. We also find that the concerned Chartered Accountant who had made the aforesaid submission before the ld. CIT(A) during penalty proceedings for A.Y.2007-08 had also filed an affidavit before us w…

M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…he same to tax in its return of income. It is already well settled that there is no estoppel against the statute. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar (HUF) vs WTO reported in (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). It is also well settled that the revenue cannot take advantage of ignorance of the provisions of the Act on the part of the assessee and on the contrary, the revenue is expected to educate the assessee and not to deprive the legitimate deductions which is otherwise entitled for the assessee. Hence respectfully following these principles an…

M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 94/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…he same to tax in its return of income. It is already well settled that there is no estoppel against the statute. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar (HUF) vs WTO reported in (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). It is also well settled that the revenue cannot take advantage of ignorance of the provisions of the Act on the part of the assessee and on the contrary, the revenue is expected to educate the assessee and not to deprive the legitimate deductions which is otherwise entitled for the assessee. Hence respectfully following these principles an…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Dibrugarh vs. M/S. Brahmaputra Cracker & Polymer Ltd., Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 89/GTY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

…he same to tax in its return of income. It is already well settled that there is no estoppel against the statute. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar (HUF) vs WTO reported in (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). It is also well settled that the revenue cannot take advantage of ignorance of the provisions of the Act on the part of the assessee and on the contrary, the revenue is expected to educate the assessee and not to deprive the legitimate deductions which is otherwise entitled for the assessee. Hence respectfully following these principles an…

D.C.I.T., CC-3(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Loknath Prasad Gupta, Titagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 162/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Aug 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153ASection 154

…ntions, reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) SAIL, DSP –vs.- Employees Association (1998)-vs.- Union of India & Ors [2003] 262 ITR 638 (Cal.); (ii) In Maynak Poddar (HUF) –vs.- Wealth Tax Officer [2003] 262 ITR 633 (Cal.) (iii) CIT –vs.- Bhaskar Mitter (1994) 73 Taxman 437 (Cal.); (iv) DCIT –vs.- Sanmukhdas Wadhwani (2003) 85 ITD 734 (Nag.). 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) found merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs. 12,93,62,086/- on account of interest on excise duty pertaining to ea…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sova Ispat Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e in this behalf is placed on the decisions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in CIT v Ajax Products Ltd., (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC) and those of the Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court in CIT v BhaskarMitter, (1974) 73 Taxman 437 (Cal) and MaynakPoddar (HUF) v WTO, (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). The same view has also been taken by the Hon 'ble Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006- 07. 5.4 The 2000 Scheme was formulated by the West Bengal State Government for the promotion of industry in the State. The 2000 Scheme was for industries in large, medium, small scale and tourism sectors. The 2000 Scheme prov…

Chirag J. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle- 19 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 6520/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…any person on oath, hence any such statement has no evidencery value and any admission made during the such statement cannot , by itself, be made the basis for addition. Further, the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court, in the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs WTO(2003) 262 ITR 633, has observed that if, in law an item is not taxable, no amount of admission or misapprehension can make it taxable. The taxability or the authority to impose tax is independent of admission. Neither, there can be any waiver of the right by the assessee and the department cannot rely upon any such admission or mis- apprehension, if it is otherwis…

Mumbai International Airport P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2018/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodmumbai International Airport Vs. Dcit,Circle-10(2)(2) Private Limited Room No.209,Aaykar Bhawan Finance Department M.K.Road 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099 Pan/Gir No.Aaecm6285C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Dcit-10(2)(2) Vs. Mumbai International Room No.216-A,Aaykar Bhawan Airport Private Limited M.K.Road Finance Department, 1St Floor, Terminal 1B Mumbai-400 020 Chhatrapati Shivaji Internaitonal Airport Santacruz (E) Mumbai-400 099

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

…lected. If any item of receipt is not taxable under the Act, then tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel. The Hon’ble High Court considered the aforesaid judgements while expressing its opinion. 14.16. In the case of Mayank Poddar (HUF) vs WTO 262 ITR 633 (Cal), it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that there is no estoppel against statute. Thus, if an assessee under misunderstanding, admission or miss-appreciation offered an amount to tax, then the same would not be taxable merely because of wrong understanding of law by the assessee or because of his admission or miss-appreciation of law an…

Pramila Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4245/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…ument, the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions 1. Nirmala L Mehta Vs Balasubramaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITS 1 (Bom) 2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd Vs Janapada sabha AIR 1961 (SC) 3. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CIR (Cal) 262 (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). 6.2 The cases are perused and considered. I find that the additional ground is in the nature of alternate plea. The case reported in 128 hR 294 (SC) are not relevant to the case of the appellant. I have already held that by handing over the property in question for development with development rights through a written argument and having…

Pratibha Gajanan Bhoir, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…ument, the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions 1. Nirmala L Mehta Vs Balasubramaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITS 1 (Bom) 2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd Vs Janapada sabha AIR 1961 (SC) 3. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CIR (Cal) 262 (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). 6.2 The cases are perused and considered. I find that the additional ground is in the nature of alternate plea. The case reported in 128 hR 294 (SC) are not relevant to the case of the appellant. I have already held that by handing over the property in question for development with development rights through a written argument and having…

Prakash Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD- 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…ument, the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions 1. Nirmala L Mehta Vs Balasubramaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITS 1 (Bom) 2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd Vs Janapada sabha AIR 1961 (SC) 3. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CIR (Cal) 262 (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). 6.2 The cases are perused and considered. I find that the additional ground is in the nature of alternate plea. The case reported in 128 hR 294 (SC) are not relevant to the case of the appellant. I have already held that by handing over the property in question for development with development rights through a written argument and having…

Pradeep Gajanan Bhoir, Thane vs. ITO WD- 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4242/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…ument, the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions 1. Nirmala L Mehta Vs Balasubramaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITS 1 (Bom) 2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd Vs Janapada sabha AIR 1961 (SC) 3. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CIR (Cal) 262 (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). 6.2 The cases are perused and considered. I find that the additional ground is in the nature of alternate plea. The case reported in 128 hR 294 (SC) are not relevant to the case of the appellant. I have already held that by handing over the property in question for development with development rights through a written argument and having…

Draupadibai Gajanan Bhoir, Kalyan vs. ITO WD3(2), Kalyan

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4241/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 55

…ument, the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions 1. Nirmala L Mehta Vs Balasubramaniam CIT (2004) 269 ITS 1 (Bom) 2. Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd Vs Janapada sabha AIR 1961 (SC) 3. Mayank Poddar (HUF) Vs WTO (2003) 181 CIR (Cal) 262 (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal). 6.2 The cases are perused and considered. I find that the additional ground is in the nature of alternate plea. The case reported in 128 hR 294 (SC) are not relevant to the case of the appellant. I have already held that by handing over the property in question for development with development rights through a written argument and having…

ACIT, Cir-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tcg Facilities Management Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1648/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) TCG Facilities Management Vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Building Beta, Bengal Intelligent Park, Block EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091 (W.B.) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCB 2810 R (Assessee) .. (Revenue) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1648/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs. TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Build…

Tcg Facilities Management Services Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1631/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1631/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) TCG Facilities Management Vs. ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Building Beta, Bengal Intelligent Park, Block EP & GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700091 (W.B.) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCB 2810 R (Assessee) .. (Revenue) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1648/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) ACIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs. TCG Facilities Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Ground Floor, Build…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…was held by the Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Limited –vs.- CIT (229 ITR 383) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Maynak Poddar (HUF) –vs.- WTO (262 ITR 633) that his jurisdiction was rightly exercised by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in entertaining the additional ground raised by the assessee claiming exclusion of capital subsidy received by way of sales tax remission under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme. We, therefore, find the objection raised on behalf of the revenue in this regard to be unsustainable…

Sri. E.Krishnamurthy (Ind), Puttur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1798/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…ents relied on by the assessee are as under: “I. PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD., reported in 91 ITR 18 [SC] GREENVIEW RESTAURANT reported in 263 ITR 169 [Gaul; 3. CIT V. ASHOK KUMAR SONI reported in 291 ITR 172 [Raj]; 4. MA YNAK PODDAR [11U11 reported in 262 ITR 633 [Cal]; 5. NIRMALA L.M1'.717A V. CIT reported in 269 ITR I [Born] 6. BlIANDARI METALS AND ALLOYS P. LTD., reported in 136 STC 292 [Karl 7. CIT V. MR.P.FIRM.MUAR reported in 56 ITR 67 [SC] 8. S.R.KOSHTI V. CIT reported in 276 ITR 167 [Gull 9. KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI reported in 174 Taxman 466 [Karl” ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012…