Abdul Hamid v. ITO

117 Taxmann.com 986High Court2020#2875 most cited

What is Abdul Hamid v. ITO authority for?

Section 115BBE does not apply to genuine business receipts, business turnover, or 'on-money' from sales, which should be assessed under normal provisions allowing for loss set-off; furthermore, there is no concept of "partial application of mind" by the Assessing Officer in an assessment.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Abdul Hamid v. ITO · 117 Taxmann.com 986 · Section 115BBE · Section 68 · business receipts · on-money · unexplained cash credit · set-off of business loss · application of mind · Section 263 revision · normal provisions · Gauhati

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 147Section 68Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115besection 256(1)section 256section 44afproximate nexussection 262section 80ib(10)project completion methodon money receipttrade creditorsinadequate enquirysection 91

Judgments citing Abdul Hamid v. ITO

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…019] 106 taxmann.com 31 (SC) If details inquires made by AO, revision u/s. 263 is not sustainable (ii) High Court of Bombay in case of CIT V. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) (iii) Hon’ble Gauhati ITAT in the case of Abdul Hamid vs. ITO [2020] 117 Taxmann.com 986 dated 17th July 2020 held that there is no concept of “partial application of mind” by the AO and there could either be application of mind or non-application of mind (iv) Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salors International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.). It was held that “Merely because from a perfectioni…

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ere is no justification for taxing such income u/s 115BBE of the act. In support of\nour contention we place our reliance on the following case laws:\nShri Lovish Singh Vs ITO in ITA No. 143/Jodh/2018, vide order dated 25-05-\n2018.\nAbdul Hamid Vs ITO (2020) 117 Taxmann.com 986 (Gauhati Trib)\nThe Hon'ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam, in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s Hirapanna\nJewellers, in ITA No.253/Viz/2020, vide order dated 12.05.2021 held that:\n“9. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration of all the facts and\nthe circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the cash receipts\n…

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 249/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar v. ACIT – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 PAN – AAEPY4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Saket Bhattad, Advocate Revenue Represented by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT(DR) Date of conclusion of hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of pronouncement of order : 09/06/2025 O R D E R P…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"A\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nHON'BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 4872, 4878, 4866 & 4865/Mum/2023\n(A.Ys: 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2018-19)\n\nDCIT, Central Circle – 5(2) Vs. AGV Consultants,\nRoom No. 1908, Air India\nBldg, Nariman Point,\nMumbai – 400021\nA-101, Ashoka Tower,\nKullupwali Road,\nBorivali (E), Mumbai –\n400066.\n\nPAN/GIR No. AAZFA0780A\n(Applicant)\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nShri Neelkanth Khandelwal\nRevenue by\nDR K.R. Subhash, CIT-Ld.DR &\nShri Ram Krishn Kedia,…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4872, 4878, 4866 & 4865/Mum/2023 (A.Ys: 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle – 5(2) Vs. AGV Consultants, Room No. 1908, Air India A-101, Ashoka Tower, Bldg, Nariman Point, Kullupwali Road, Mumbai – 400021 Borivali (E), Mumbai – 400066. PAN/GIR No. AAZFA0780A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by DR K.R. Subhash, CIT-Ld.DR & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pro…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"A\" BENCH MUMBAI\nBEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nHON'BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 4872, 4878, 4866 & 4865/Mum/2023\n(A.Ys: 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2018-19)\n\nDCIT, Central Circle – 5(2) Vs. AGV Consultants,\nRoom No. 1908, Air India A-101, Ashoka Tower,\nBldg, Nariman Point, Kullupwali Road,\nMumbai – 400021 Borivali (E), Mumbai –\n400066.\nPAN/GIR No. AAZFA0780A\n(Applicant)\n(Respondent)\n\nAssessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal\nRevenue by DR K.R. Subhash, CIT-Ld.DR &\nShri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. AR\n…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 5(2), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI vs. AGV CONSULTANTS , BORIVALI (E), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4872, 4878, 4866 & 4865/Mum/2023 (A.Ys: 2017-18, 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle – 5(2) Vs. AGV Consultants, Room No. 1908, Air India A-101, Ashoka Tower, Bldg, Nariman Point, Kullupwali Road, Mumbai – 400021 Borivali (E), Mumbai – 400066. PAN/GIR No. AAZFA0780A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue by DR K.R. Subhash, CIT-Ld.DR & Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 08.04.2025 Date of Pro…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2017-18 M/s Din Dayal Purushottam Lal, The PCIT, बनाम 40 CC, Janta Bhawan Road, Rohtak. VS Sirsa-125 055. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AACFD0107B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR तार"ख/Date o…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2017-18 M/s Din Dayal Purushottam Lal, The PCIT, बनाम 40 CC, Janta Bhawan Road, Rohtak. VS Sirsa-125 055. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AACFD0107B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR तार"ख/Date o…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Ys : 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2017-18 M/s Din Dayal Purushottam Lal, The PCIT, बनाम 40 CC, Janta Bhawan Road, Rohtak. VS Sirsa-125 055. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AACFD0107B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR तार"ख/Date o…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 320/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 319/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 318/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 284/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

…articular project. Therefore, such ‘on-money’ should be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act and not under section 115BBE of the Act. For this proposition, we rely on decision of Gauhati Bench of Tribunal in case of Abdul Hamid V. ITO reported vide 117 Taxmann.com 986 (2020), wherein it was held as follows: “Our view is further fortified by the Judgment of the Coordinate Bench of Mumbai in the case of ACT Central Circle-13 Mumbaiv. Rahil Agencies, order dated 2.3 November, 2016 wherein it was held that section 115BBE does not apply to business receipts/business turnover. The findings of the Coordinate…

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrk y{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 284/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 cuke Parshavnath Builders PCIT, Udaipur. Shop No. 1 Ballabhbari Shopping Vs. Complex, Gumanpura, Kota. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQFP 2488 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. & Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jk…

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 208/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar PCIT, Vs. Mills Ltd., Kota Udaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACAS 5985 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@…

AVINASH CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR 2(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1797/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleavinashbhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Avinash Constructions V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AvinashBhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, ABIL House, Ganesh Khind Road 8th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old CGO Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCA5452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Avinash Constructions V. DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, ABIL House, Ganesh Khind Road 8th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old CGO Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 40…

AVINASH BHOSALE INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD., MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1307/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleavinashbhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabca5452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Avinash Constructions V. Dcit – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road 8Th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old Cgo Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaefa6358H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AvinashBhosale Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., V. DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, ABIL House, Ganesh Khind Road 8th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old CGO Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCA5452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Avinash Constructions V. DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) 2, ABIL House, Ganesh Khind Road 8th Floor, Room No. 803 Pune City, Pune – 411007 Old CGO Bldg, Pratishtha Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 40…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3