344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd.

349 ITR 260High Court2012#9706 most cited

What is 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cannot confirm an addition solely on the grounds that the assessee failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of transactions undertaken in a prior year.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd. · CIT(A) powers · confirmation of addition · insufficient evidence · genuineness of transactions · tax appeals

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd.

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nfirm the addition of the amount of" 1,53,48,850/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions which were undertaken in the year 1984-85." iv) 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra v) 349 ITR 260 (All) CIT vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries (P) Ltd. vi) 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj) CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 71 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No.…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nfirm the addition of the amount of" 1,53,48,850/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions which were undertaken in the year 1984-85." iv) 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra v) 349 ITR 260 (All) CIT vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries (P) Ltd. vi) 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj) CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 71 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No.…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nfirm the addition of the amount of" 1,53,48,850/- on the ground that the assessee could not produce sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions which were undertaken in the year 1984-85." iv) 301 ITR 404 (Raj) CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra v) 349 ITR 260 (All) CIT vs. Raghuraji Agro Industries (P) Ltd. vi) 45 taxmann.com 441 (Guj) CIT vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 71 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL i) ITA No.1925/Del/2013 Kamal Industry, HUF vs. DCIT ii) ITA No. 1946/D/2010 AY 2000-01 dated 26.3.2018 Ravina Khurana v. DCIT iii) ITA No.…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1116/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1115/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1114/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1112/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 1, Bangalore vs. M/S. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1048/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 2Section 3

…ia Limited v. CIT reported in 187 ITR 688 (SC) (ii) CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram reported in 224 ITR 610 (SC) (iii) NTPC v. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC) (iv) CIT v. K S Dattatreya reported in 344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd reported in 349 ITR 260 (All) (vi) CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders reported in 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 21.7 The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned CIT(A) however failed to appreciate the submissions of the assessee and upheld the decision of the AO. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order of the CIT(A) is perverse and contrary to the position in law. 21.8 Wherefore the…

Syntensia Network Security India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ent year • Tribunal dismissed appeal filed by revenue - Whether finding recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) was a finding of fact and, as such, no fault could be found with order of Tribunal in endorsing decision of Commissioner (Appeals) - Held, yes 3. [2012) 349 ITR 260 (Allahabad) CIT vs. Raqhuraii Aqro Industries (P.) Ltd., IT : Where during preceding year assessee was showing two figures, viz., unsecured loan of Rs. 60 lakhs and share application money of Rs. 40 lakhs but during relevant 5 M/s. Syntensia Network Security India Pvt. Ltd., assessment year these were clubbed together and consolidated balance of…

ACIT, Circle-3, Asansol vs. Shri Shyam Cement Works Pvt. Ltd., Asansol

In the result Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vs. Shri Shyam Cement Works Pvt. Ltd. Circle-3, Kolkata. (Pan: Aadcs8052J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Gupta, FCA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…76 ITR 365 for the principle that accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct, unless there are strong and sufficient reasons to indicate that they are unreliable. He placed reliance on CIT Vs Raghuraji Agro Industries 349 ITR 260 (All ), CIT Vs Dinesh Kumar (2005) 98 ttj (Jd) 695, CIT vs Sanjay Oil Cake Industries 197 CTR 521, CIT Vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi KhetanFor 352 ITR 484, Indore Malwa United Mills Ltd Vs. State of MP 60 ITR 41 and other decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court to support his argument that there cannot be any addition until and u…

344 ITR 127 (Kar) (v) CIT v. Raghuraji Agro Ind.(P) Ltd. (349 ITR 260) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax