43 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas v. CIT

161 ITR 82High Court1986#6076 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 28(va)non-compete feechange of opiniondisallowance u/s 14aescapement of incomesection 28reopening of assessmentsection 14aassistant commissionerscrutiny assessmentspeaking orderreassessment proceedings

Judgments citing 43 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas v. CIT

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

ITA 302/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 129Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…s high courts such as in CIT v. National Co. Ltd. [1993] 199 ITR 445 (Cal), Sait Bansilal and Rangisetti Veeranna v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 750 (AP), Sterling Construction & Trading Co. v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 236 (Kar) and LokenathTolaram v. CIT [1986] 24 Taxman 486/161 ITR 82 (Bom). Hence issue no 11 enlisted in para no 13 of the order is decided in favour of the assessee. In view of our decision on issue no (i), issue no (ii) does not survive and issue no (iii) is dealt with separately. In view of this we allow ground no 1,2,3,14,15 and 16 of the appeal of the assessee. 21. As we have held that Id CIT (A) has exceede…

DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1916/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he provisions of the Act does not permit CIT(A) to enhance income of the assessee by finding a new source. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of LokenathTolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82(Bom). The ld. Authorized Representative submits that enhancement has been triggered by the assessment order in the case of Harshit Finlease and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the order of First Appellate Authority dated 23/12/2008 upholding said assessment order. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to…

FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS CORPORATION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he provisions of the Act does not permit CIT(A) to enhance income of the assessee by finding a new source. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of LokenathTolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82(Bom). The ld. Authorized Representative submits that enhancement has been triggered by the assessment order in the case of Harshit Finlease and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the order of First Appellate Authority dated 23/12/2008 upholding said assessment order. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to…

DANDVATI INVESTMENTS & TRADING COMPANY P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3638/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he provisions of the Act does not permit CIT(A) to enhance income of the assessee by finding a new source. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of LokenathTolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82(Bom). The ld. Authorized Representative submits that enhancement has been triggered by the assessment order in the case of Harshit Finlease and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the order of First Appellate Authority dated 23/12/2008 upholding said assessment order. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to…

FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS CORPORAITON P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3635/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he provisions of the Act does not permit CIT(A) to enhance income of the assessee by finding a new source. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of LokenathTolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82(Bom). The ld. Authorized Representative submits that enhancement has been triggered by the assessment order in the case of Harshit Finlease and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the order of First Appellate Authority dated 23/12/2008 upholding said assessment order. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to…

ACIT 2(1), MUMBAI vs. FIRESTORM ELECTRONICS CORP LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3538/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.3638/मुं/2012(िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1916/मुं/2014(िन.व. 2006-07) Dandvati Investments & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacd-3925-E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Range 2(1) Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... "ितवाद"/Respondent Mumbai – 400 020 आअसं.3635/मुं/2012 (िन.व. 2006-07) आअसं.1915/मुं/2014 (िन.व. 2006-07) M/S. Firestorm Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. ‘The International’ 5Th Floor, 16, New Marine Lines Cross Road No.1, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacf-4730-D ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -1(1), Mumbai.Room No.533, 5Th Floor,Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020..... "ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Ikshu ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani /
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…he provisions of the Act does not permit CIT(A) to enhance income of the assessee by finding a new source. In support of his submissions the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case of LokenathTolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82(Bom). The ld. Authorized Representative submits that enhancement has been triggered by the assessment order in the case of Harshit Finlease and Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Assessment Year 2006-07 and the order of First Appellate Authority dated 23/12/2008 upholding said assessment order. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to…

M/S ARJUN TRANSPORT COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4984/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 4984/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2016-17) M/S. Arjun Transport Company Private Limited, Flat No.414, Empire Complex, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan: Aabca-5913-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-12(1)(2) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Smita Verma सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/04/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/07/2021

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…n what was the subject matter of assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee to support his contentions placed reliance on following decisions: i. CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria, 66 ITR 443(SC); ii. Lokenath Tolaram vs. CIT, 161 ITR 82 (Bom.); and iii. Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2953/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 decided on 31/01/2019. Without prejudice to the primary contentions made in respect of ground no.2, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that if at all disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is to be made, it should be on the corr…

M/S GINNI GOLDLIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 673/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Ginni Gold Limited, Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income 2606/4, Shop No.105, Tax, 1st Floor,Solitaire Plaza, Circle-12(1), Gurudwara Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110005 PAN-AACCG9728Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA Respondent by : Sh. Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 09.02.2021 Date of pronouncement : .04.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : This appeal file…

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha () Shashi Kiran Shetty Vs Acit, Cent.Cir.44, Mumbai 5Th Floor, Aavashya House Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 Pan : Ameps5601B Appellant Respondednt

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 274

…ncement u/s 31(3) of the Act is restricted to the source of income which have been the subject matter of consideration by the Income-tax Officer from the point of view of taxability. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lokasatha Tolaram vs CIT (1986) 161 ITR 82(Bom) held that the powers of the appellate authority is limited to the issue in question before him which was subject matter of deliberations by the AO during assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sardar Lal & Co (2001) 251 ITR 864 held that whenever question of taxability of income from a new source of income…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2760/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2759/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2758/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1825/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT CHEMSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1824/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

JUBILANT BIOSYS LTD.,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by assessee in all the years under consideration before us stands partly allowed

ITA 7302/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Nk Saini & Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. KM Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, CIT,DR
Section 251(2)

…Ltd. ITA No. 1824 & 1825/Del/18, 2757 & 2758/Del/18 Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. 5. 44 ITR 891 6. 66 ITR 443 7. Sneh Lata vs. CIT 61 ITR 139, 143 (1), CIT vs. Jagdish 51 ITR 266 (2), Prabhudas vs. CIT 62 ITR 621(3), CIT vs. Chaganlal 148 ITR 7 (4), Lokenath vs. CIT 161 ITR 82 (5), CIT vs. Nirbheram 127 ITR 491 (6), 8. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Shapoorji Pallonji Mystery vs CIT (which has been affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 44 ITR 891, referred to herein above). Hon’ble Bombay High Court clarified that “Source” of income would not mean “source” in sense of head of income as…

SURENDRA KUMAR PANCHOLI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 166/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Sharda (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani (Jt.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…gments passed by various Authorities which support our contention:- (i) Roshan Motors, Muzaffarnagar V CIT (ITAT) (ii) CIT v Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 862 (SC) ITA 166/JP/2017_ 6 Surendra Kr. Pancholi Vs. ITO (iii) Loknath Tolaram V CIT (1986) 161 ITR 82 (Bom) 8. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below. 9. The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue. The Assessing Officer has worked out the gross profit rate @ 9.94% while the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the assessee version regarding the G.P. rate @ 23.98%. The ld. CIT(A) has not given any opportunity…