Agro Chemicals v. Commissioner of Income Tax

109 ITR 134Reported decision#21946 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2023.

Judgments citing Agro Chemicals v. Commissioner of Income Tax

Income Tax Officer -32(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumb

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 60/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta
Section 132Section 143(2)

…d a reasonable opportunity. Mere payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient proof for claiming any expenditure as held by Assam pesticides and Agro Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 227 ITR 845 & Chemaux Private Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 109 ITR 134 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,79,78,853/- granting relief without considering the principals laid down in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT(1995) 80 Taxman 89(SC) and Durga Prasad More Vs CIT(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC…

ITO 32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kinjal Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2464/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 60/Mum/2022 Ita Nos. 2464/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15)

For Appellant: Soumendu Kumar DashFor Respondent: Shashank Mehta
Section 132Section 143(2)

…d a reasonable opportunity. Mere payment by account payee cheque is not sufficient proof for claiming any expenditure as held by Assam pesticides and Agro Chemicals Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, 227 ITR 845 & Chemaux Private Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 109 ITR 134 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,79,78,853/- granting relief without considering the principals laid down in the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT(1995) 80 Taxman 89(SC) and Durga Prasad More Vs CIT(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC…

Sunraj Diamond Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahya, Am & Sri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, AR
Section 132

…y quantitative test to find out whether the onus in a particular case has been duly discharged. It all depends on the facts and situations of the case." ITA Nos. 46 & 47/Mum/2019 & 7186 & 7254/Mum/2018 (b) Chemaux Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 109 ITR 134: "Complete proof is to be given by the person who has claimed the expenditure, that he has incurred the same for the business purpose” Consideration of all the above material facts clearly state that the assessee has not made any actual purchases from the two parties M/s. Mayank Impex, M/s.Dharam Impex but has only taken bogus bills /accommodat…