358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

308 ITR 161Supreme Court of India2008#4082 most cited

What is 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. authority for?

An addition made by an Assessing Officer without proper application of mind and inadequate enquiry can be the basis for revision under Section 263. Lack of evidence, such as a Partnership Deed, cannot solely lead to an adverse inference if other facts support the assessee's position.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. · 358 ITR 295 SC · CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust · 308 ITR 161 SC · Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · non application of mind · revision · adverse inference

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 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd.

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ERA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

ITA 3096/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 92C

…ore; appeal of revenue on this ground of appeal may be dismissed. To\nsupport his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the\ndecision in Union of India versus Satish Pannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221-\nSC and CIT Vs J.K. Charitable Trust (2008) 308 ITR 161 SC and PCIT Versus\nQuest Investment Advisor Private Limited (2018) 409 ITR 545 (Bombay).\n17. On the addition of ₹ 116.92 crore for issuance of CCD, the learned AR of the\nassessee submits that no equity shares were issued during the assessment\nyear 2013-14. The assessee has received Rs.116.92 Crore against issuing\nCCD. All the details and amo…

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)

…2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 89 drawn against the assessee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands…

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)

…2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 89 drawn against the assessee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands…

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)

…2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 89 drawn against the assessee in this regard only on the ground that copy of Partnership Deed had not been placed on record. The following decisions are to the same effect : i) 358 ITR 295 (SC) CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. ii) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT v. Berger Paints iv) 394 ITR 449 (SC) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing company Ltd. vs. DCIT 30.1 Otherwise too, as rightly contended, both the payments, i.e., either on account of remuneration paid to partners, or on account of interest paid to partners is taxable in their respective hands…

PCIT-07, DELHI vs. M/S WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.

ITA - 135 / 2023HC Delhi07 Mar 2023
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…preceding and subsequent assessment years the income from Business Centre has been assessed as Business income. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd . (201 3) 358 I'm 295 (SC), CIT vs. J .K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) and CIT vs. Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:15.04.2023 13:55:33 Signature Not Verified 2023:DHC:2439-DB ITA 135/2023 Pg.10 of 12 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416ITR 613 (SC) . 6.8.3 The contention of the assessee is that it has not let out any property or part thereof, instead it has been allowing th…

NAMITA AGGARWAL,AGRA UP vs. ITO WARD-10(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7686/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7686/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Namita Aggarwal Ito D-59, Kamla Nagar, Vs. Ward 10(1) Agra, Uttar Pradesh. New Delhi. Pan No. Abcpa2224R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 57

…t years the claim of the assessee was denied except in the year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [358 ITR 295], CIT Vs. J.K. Charitable Trust [308 ITR 161], Radha Soami Satsang Vs. CIT [193 ITR 321] (SC). 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material placed before us. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment denied the claim for set off of interest pa…

WEL INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2011-12 Wel Intertrade Private Vs. Acit, Circle-27(2), Limited, New Delhi. 5,E Local Shopping Centre Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part 2, New Delhi – 110 048 Pan Aaacw10187F (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…n the preceding and subsequent assessment years the income from Business Centre has been assessed as Business income. Reliance is placed on the judgement of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), CIT vs. J.K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) and CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 416 ITR 613 (SC). 6.8.3 The contention of the assessee is that it has not let out any property or part thereof, instead it has been allowing the spaces for commercial use by commercially exploiting the property for the purpose of business. Therefore the impugned income from Business Centre is assessable…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…suing litigation for the sake of it.” ii) (2001) 1 SCC 748 State of Andhra Pradesh v A.P. Jaiswal iii) 266 ITR 99 (SC) CIT vs. Berger Paints iv) 249 ITR 219 (SC) UOI vs. Kuomidini Narayan Dalai and Another v) 249 ITR 221 (SC) UOI vs. Satish Panna Lai Shah vi) 308 ITR 161 (SC) CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 9. On the contrary learned DR opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee has not filed these evidences before the assessing authority. He submitted that the evidence filed by the assessee at the belated stage has rightly been not admitted by the authorities below. 10. I have heard rival submissi…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. VIJAY TILES & CEMENT PRODUCES , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1748/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vijay Tiles & Cement Income Tax, Products, Circle – 11(1), Plot No.6-11, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Hyderabad – 500072. Pan : Aagfv3841A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Shri Sunil Goutham Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) – 9, Hyderabad Dt.29.08.2019 In Ita No10085/Cit(A)-9/Hyd/2018-19 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Goutham
Section 143(3)

…arned CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee both on the facts and law contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in taking reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case J.K. Chartable Trust (308 ITR 161) and Radhasoami Satsang (193 ITR 321) when the facts and circumstances are different from the instant case. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has correctly assessed the income of the assessee under the appropriate head of income. 4. The Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the facts and circums…

M/S SHUBHAM COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.,ELLENABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, SIRSA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…8 ITR 295 (SC) • Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. Vs. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Berger Paints 266 ITR 99(SC) • UOI Vs. Kuomidini Narayana Dalal and Another 249 ITR 219 (SC) • UOI Vs. Satish Panna Lal Shah 249 ITR 221 (SC) • CIT Vs. J.K Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 (SC) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettial Vs. CIT 38 ITR 579 (SC) • CIT Vs. Paradise Holidays 325 ITR 13 (Del) • CIT Vs. M/s Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. in ITA NO. 999/2010 dt. 03/08/2010 • CIT Vs. Smt. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del) • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Del) • ITO Vs. Somsons & Co. 148 Taxman 21 (Asr)(Mag) • Pandit Bros Vs. CIT…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…undertakings were not eligible for the deduction in the A.Y. 2013-14. Referring to various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 and in the case of CIT vs. JK Charitable Trust, 308 ITR 161, it was argued that following the rule of consistency alone the AO should not have rejected the claim of deduction in respect of Noida and Nagpur units. 21. It was argued that all the four undertakings, i.e., Noida, Nagpur, Coimbatore and Uppal were eligible for the deduction having been set up in the preceding assessment years wherein deduction…

MANUGRAPH INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 338/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Manugraph India Limited Asst. Cit-3(2)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sidhwa House, N. A. Sawant Marg, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7246 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi : Shri V. Jenardhan Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…(217 ITR 4 (Gau)) • CIT V Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (158 ITR 3 (Del)) • CIT v Neo poly Pack (245 ITR 492 (Del)) • UDI v Kuomidini Narayan Dalal and Another (249 ITR 219 (SC)) • UOl v Satish Panna Lal Shah (249 ITR 221 (SC)) • CIT v J.K. Charitable Trust (308 ITR 161 (SC)) • Racold Thermo Limited (ITA No.1454/PN/2010) dated 11 September 2015 • Affinity Express India Pvt Ltd (ITA No.595/PN/2013) dated 29 April 2015 2.21 In light of the above decisions, it is respectfully submitted that the floating rate charged by the Assessee at 6 months LIBOR+400 bps charged by the Assessee based on Internal CUP available i…

M/S BENGAL SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,DURGAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1990/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 80

…following case-law:-  CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. 358 ITR 295 SC 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Bengal Shristi Infrastructure Development Ltd  Radhasoami Satsang v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC)  CIT vs. JK Charitable Trust (2009) 308 ITR 161 (SC) 4.1. Copy of the map of plan sanctioned by the municipal authorities separately and occupancy certificate given separately was filed and this aspect was not denied by the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that the details of the size of all the flats and other details were specifically filed by them before the Assessing Officer as wel…

MCKINSEY & COMPANY INTERNATIONAL INC.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (IT) 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 859/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 859/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka SrFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 859/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT (IT)-3 (2)(1), Mckinsey& Company, Inc. Scindia House, Ballard Switzerland, C/o S R B C & बिधम/ Estate, Mumbai- Associates LLP, 14th Floor, 400038. The Ruby SenapatiBapat Vs. Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400028. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAACM7228F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Porus Kaka Sr Advocate with Sh. Divesh Chawla प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Samuel Dar…

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Dayanand Contractor The Pr. CIT V & PO Kharainti, Aayakar Bhavan, Delhi Road, Dist. Rohtak. vs. Rohtak – 124 001 PAN AADFD4239K Haryana. (Appellant) (Respondent) S/Shri Gautam Jain, Piyush For Assessee : Kumar Kamal & Lalit Mohan, Advocates For Revenue : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2017 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. Both the appeals b…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4342/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…e by CIT(A) was not challenged by the revenue before ITAT and as such the department itself has accepted this issue. In this connection, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J K Charitable Trust [2008] 308 ITR 161 (SC). 151. We have gone through the submission of the parties. The CIT(A) has observed that this very issue arose in the preceding year and relief allowed at the first appellate stage was accepted by the revenue as no appeal was filed against the same before ITAT. In the light of above position and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3846/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Renu Amitabh, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

…e by CIT(A) was not challenged by the revenue before ITAT and as such the department itself has accepted this issue. In this connection, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J K Charitable Trust [2008] 308 ITR 161 (SC). 151. We have gone through the submission of the parties. The CIT(A) has observed that this very issue arose in the preceding year and relief allowed at the first appellate stage was accepted by the revenue as no appeal was filed against the same before ITAT. In the light of above position and as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR
Section 144A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2027/DEL/2016 [A.Y. 2012-13] Dayanand Contractor Vs. ITO C/o. N.C.Garg, CA Ward-1 Mal Godam Road Rohtak Rohtak PAN : AADFD4239K [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2017 Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-Faridabad vide order dated 23.02.2016 for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised following additional…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAIL TODAY NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4252/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaidcit Mail Today Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. A Circle-6(1), F- 26, Connaught Place New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Gir/Pan: Aafcm1533J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rachna Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Salil Aggarwal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…has been accepted by Department. He submitted that authorities have not disputed genuineness of expenses in any of assessment years. He placed reliance upon following decisions: • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. J.K Charitable Trust, reported in 308 ITR 161; 4 • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhsoami Satsang versus CIT reported in 193 ITR 321; • Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT versus core health care Ltd reported in 308 ITR 263 9. Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has to incur these expenses to make an existence in market and therefore, it cannot be considered to be endurin…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2