ACIT v. M/s Vatika Green

121 TTJ 208Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#8174 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)section 69bsection 292cblock periodsection 292section 29section 133asection 132(4)section 131unexplained investmentundisclosed incomesearch and seizure

Judgments citing ACIT v. M/s Vatika Green

DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI vs. LUMAX AUTO TECHNOLOGIES LTD,, NEW DELHI

ITA 948/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the Act as held in following judgments:- " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indeo Airways (P) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi)/349 ITR 85 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi on the case of ACIT vs. M/s Vatika Green field (P) Ltd., [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Gears Ltd., ITA No.896/2008 " Golani Bros. vs. ACIT ; 75 ITD 1 (Pune) " Vivek Kumar Kathotia vs. DCIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 331 (Kol-Trib.). 11. It is also found that the survey u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted on total seven suppliers of the assessee company. Out of which…

DCIT, CC-28, NEW DELHI vs. LUMAX DK AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 947/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the Act as held in following judgments:- " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indeo Airways (P) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi)/349 ITR 85 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi on the case of ACIT vs. M/s Vatika Green field (P) Ltd., [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Gears Ltd., ITA No.896/2008 " Golani Bros. vs. ACIT ; 75 ITD 1 (Pune) " Vivek Kumar Kathotia vs. DCIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 331 (Kol-Trib.). 11. It is also found that the survey u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted on total seven suppliers of the assessee company. Out of which…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI vs. LUMAX INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 1846/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 69A

…the Act as held in following judgments:- " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indeo Airways (P) Ltd. [2012] 26 taxmann.com 244 (Delhi)/349 ITR 85 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble ITAT Delhi on the case of ACIT vs. M/s Vatika Green field (P) Ltd., [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi) " The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Gears Ltd., ITA No.896/2008 " Golani Bros. vs. ACIT ; 75 ITD 1 (Pune) " Vivek Kumar Kathotia vs. DCIT [2013] 32 taxmann.com 331 (Kol-Trib.). 11. It is also found that the survey u/s 133A of the Act was also conducted on total seven suppliers of the assessee company. Out of which…

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…r section 292C of the Act unless the contrary is proved and as such, the assessee was legally required to substantiate the seized documents with supporting evidence. Here I would also like to quote decision in case of ACIT vs. VATIKA GREENFIELD (P) LTD (Del) 121 TTJ 208 (2009), wherein Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that unless some evidence or material is brought on record by the assessee to show that what is stated in the seized document is not correct state of affairs and the state of affairs stated in the seized document has to be presumed to be true as mandated by Sec.292C of the Act. In this regard, AO…

SHRI JAISINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…ies had examined said document and found that same could not be connected with assessee's transaction, findings of appellate authorities could not be held to be perverse - Held, yes c. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Vatika Greenfield (P.) Ltd [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi) ITAT Delhi H Bench Held that Presumption as envisaged in section 292C is limited to correctness of documents found at time of search or survey but that presumption has 30 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT not been extended by statute to presume an amount on basis thereof to be income of assessee d. Nirmal Fashions Pvt. Ltd.…

SHRI JAISINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…ies had examined said document and found that same could not be connected with assessee's transaction, findings of appellate authorities could not be held to be perverse - Held, yes c. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Vatika Greenfield (P.) Ltd [2009] 121 TTJ 208 (Delhi) ITAT Delhi H Bench Held that Presumption as envisaged in section 292C is limited to correctness of documents found at time of search or survey but that presumption has 30 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT not been extended by statute to presume an amount on basis thereof to be income of assessee d. Nirmal Fashions Pvt. Ltd.…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. MARS REALTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7180/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…seized material and ignore the other part of the same material. He relied on the decisions in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); T.S. Kumaraswamy 65 ITD 188 (Mad); Vatika Greenfield Ltd. 121 TTJ 208 and held that Assessing Officer cannot accept the impounded material on selective basis and consider some part of evidence as true while rejecting the evidence which is in favour of assessee, without bringing anything on record. 19. With respect to conclusion of the Assessing Officer that no reasonable person would keep on money received in asse…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7179/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…seized material and ignore the other part of the same material. He relied on the decisions in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); T.S. Kumaraswamy 65 ITD 188 (Mad); Vatika Greenfield Ltd. 121 TTJ 208 and held that Assessing Officer cannot accept the impounded material on selective basis and consider some part of evidence as true while rejecting the evidence which is in favour of assessee, without bringing anything on record. 19. With respect to conclusion of the Assessing Officer that no reasonable person would keep on money received in asse…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7178/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…seized material and ignore the other part of the same material. He relied on the decisions in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); T.S. Kumaraswamy 65 ITD 188 (Mad); Vatika Greenfield Ltd. 121 TTJ 208 and held that Assessing Officer cannot accept the impounded material on selective basis and consider some part of evidence as true while rejecting the evidence which is in favour of assessee, without bringing anything on record. 19. With respect to conclusion of the Assessing Officer that no reasonable person would keep on money received in asse…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…seized material and ignore the other part of the same material. He relied on the decisions in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); Indeo Airways Pvt. Ltd. 349 ITR 85 (Del.); T.S. Kumaraswamy 65 ITD 188 (Mad); Vatika Greenfield Ltd. 121 TTJ 208 and held that Assessing Officer cannot accept the impounded material on selective basis and consider some part of evidence as true while rejecting the evidence which is in favour of assessee, without bringing anything on record. 19. With respect to conclusion of the Assessing Officer that no reasonable person would keep on money received in asse…

SHRI ANIL KUMAR BAJAJ,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani TanejaFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141Section 142(1)

…ed in toto but accepting a part of it and rejecting the remaining is bad in law. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in the case of (i) ITO vs Alok Mangal, 35 CCH 58 (Del); (ii) Vivek Kumar Kathoria vs DCIT ; (iii) ACIT vs Vatika Greenfield (P) Ltd., 121 TTJ 208 (Del); and (iv) Balmukund Acharya vs DCIT, 310 ITR 310 (Bom). On the basis of this he argued that even if surrender was made at the time of search, the fact remains that the addition cannot be made in the Asstt. Year 2011-12, basing on the entries in the diary relating to the year 1998, because year of taxability or the taxability as such is not…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD., GURGAON

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4647/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…evidence can be made. Reliance was placed on number of judgments including :– i) CIT vs. Babu Mohan Lal Arya Smarak Educational Trust, (High Court of Allahabad), ITA No. 303 of 2013 dated 7.11.2013; ii) ACIT vs. Vatika Greenfield (P) Ltd., ITAT Delhi (2009) 121 TTJ 208 Delhi; iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR 533 (2010) ITAT Patna Bench; v) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills, Punjab & Haryana High Court 2013 (1) TMI 451; vi) ACIT vs. Buldana Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 411; vii) Alliance Hotels vs ACIT 142 ITD 270 (Mumbai Tribunal). 95.3 The learned CIT [DR] relied on the order of t…

M/S. MICROMAX INFORMATICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4642/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…evidence can be made. Reliance was placed on number of judgments including :– i) CIT vs. Babu Mohan Lal Arya Smarak Educational Trust, (High Court of Allahabad), ITA No. 303 of 2013 dated 7.11.2013; ii) ACIT vs. Vatika Greenfield (P) Ltd., ITAT Delhi (2009) 121 TTJ 208 Delhi; iii) ACIT vs. Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR 533 (2010) ITAT Patna Bench; v) CIT vs. Khosla Ice & General Mills, Punjab & Haryana High Court 2013 (1) TMI 451; vi) ACIT vs. Buldana Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 23 ITR (Trib) 411; vii) Alliance Hotels vs ACIT 142 ITD 270 (Mumbai Tribunal). 95.3 The learned CIT [DR] relied on the order of t…

ACIT v. M/s Vatika Green (121 TTJ 208) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax