9-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 44 (a) YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (Del)

134 TTJ 167Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19106 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing 9-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 44 (a) YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (Del)

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. SHREE BALAJI PROCESSORS, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…nclusion and non-response by such person cannot be held against the assessee. On similar lines reliance is also p aced on the following judgments: - 499-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 44 (a) YFC Projects (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Del) 134 TTJ 167 (b) ACIT vs. Han Singar Gutkha (P) Ltd. (2008) 9 DTR 604(Trib.) (c) Continental Carbon India Ltd. Income-tax Officer. ITA Nos. 5269. 5270 & 5271/Del/2010. ITAT Delhi. xxx). Further, it is also submitted that the parties namely M/s Upvan Syntex, M/s Payal Fashions and M/s Gaurang Knit Fab Corporation has filed their confirmations, even then the A…

ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. METCRAFT ENGINEERING CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…ITO v Permanand ' reported at 107 TTJ 395 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported; at 334 ITR 111 The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 46 DTR 496 / 134 TTJ 167 (Delhi) 5 M/s. Metcraft Engineering Corporation The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Free India Assurance Services Ltd v DCIT reported at 62 DTR 349/(2011) 12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum) ; The Hon'ble ITAT, PuneBench in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand v ACIT reported at 79,ITD 84 ' : The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of ITO v. Kanchanwala G…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. VIJAY KUMAR AHUJA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6579/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Chadha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 68

…444, no addition is called for. Then, in the books of account of the assessee, no mistake or defect, whatsoever was pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, just because confirmations were not filed, according to ‘YFC Projects (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT’, 134 TTJ 167 (Del), no addition can be made. Further, to support the proposition that amounts representing purchases made on credit do not attract the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, ‘ACIT vs. Han Singer Gutkha (P) Ltd.’, 9 DTR (Luc) (Trib.) 604 has rightly been relied on. Then, as observed, since the purchases have been accepted as genuine, balances…

ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. RAJEEV G KALATHIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke

Section 69C

…clusion, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s M K Brothers -163 ITR 249(Guj); ii) ITO V/s Permanand 107 TTJ 395, ITAT Jodhpur Bench; iii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); 5 CO No.249/M/14 v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITAT; ix) Babulal C Borana V/s ITO (282 ITR 251) (Bombay High Court); x) CIT V/s…