Amitabh Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT

335 ITR 523High Court2011#12644 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Amitabh Construction P. Ltd. v. ACIT

ITO 3(30(3), Mumbai vs. Solid Machinery Co.P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5328/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 68

…erely transaction of purchase of goods, which was shown as outstanding creditors then the same cannot be held as unexplained cash credits. In this regard a decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Amitabh Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adul.CIT reported in 335 ITR 523. is very relevant in the perspective of appellant's case, wherein it has been clearly held that the Assessing officer had passed a contradictory order by holding that the books of account were not reliable while deciding the issue of the sundry creditors but had relied upon the return for accepting the profit shown to be correct which was support…

Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 3224/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ortified by the judgment of the Hon`ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of AMITABH CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD. Vs. Page 9 of 14 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal Vs. ITO, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi /ITA No.3224/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 335 ITR 523 wherein it was held as follows: “5. In the alternative, it has been submitted that once the AO has rejected the books of account after appreciation of the evidence of the alleged materials suppliers then the AO should have proceeded to assess the income of the assessee under s. 144(3) of the Act of 1961. It is submitted that non-proving of the g…

Shri Ravindrasinh N.Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3344/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee would indulge in furnishing inaccurate particulars with respect to Rs.15 lacs which is a very small figure as compared to the turnover and profit to avoid the tax liability. He also relied on the decision in case of Amitabh Construction P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 335 ITR 523 (Jharkhand), CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain, 156 Taxman 50 (Allahabad) and the decision in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). He therefore submitted that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of A.O. and CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

Shri Ravindrasinh N.Gohil, Bhavnagar vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3343/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ssee would indulge in furnishing inaccurate particulars with respect to Rs.15 lacs which is a very small figure as compared to the turnover and profit to avoid the tax liability. He also relied on the decision in case of Amitabh Construction P. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 335 ITR 523 (Jharkhand), CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain, 156 Taxman 50 (Allahabad) and the decision in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). He therefore submitted that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) be deleted. Ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of A.O. and CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and peruse…

Aditya Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-41(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2342/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 M/S Aditya Enterprise Ito Ward-41(1) बनाम 27, Mohan Lal Street, 18, Rabindra Sarani, / Kolkata-004 Podder Court, Kolkata- V/S. [Pan No.Aaofa 6657 K] 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata Dated 30.12.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-41(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 22.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,26,350/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Gross Profit, Which Was Wrongly Estimated @ 2% Of The Turnover. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,75,000/- Made By The Ao In Respect Of Capital Introduction By Wrongly Invoking Section 68 Of The Act. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of 33,87,197/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Non- Existent Sundry Creditors.

Section 143(3)Section 68

…e assessee. The ld. AR in ITA No.2342/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2010-11 M/s Aditya Enterprise Vs. ITO Wd-41(1) Kol. Page 5 support of assessee’s claim relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Amitabh Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT reported in 335 ITR 523 (Jhar), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed as under : Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - Where Assessing Officer had passed a contradictory order by making addition under section 68 holding that books of account were not reliable, while deciding issue of sundry creditors, but relied upon return for accepting profit sh…

ITO, Ward -47(2), Kolkata vs. Sumit Jaiswal, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1541/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1541/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 I.T.O., Ward-47(2), Kolkata -Vs- Sumit Jaiswal [Pan: Alupj 0779 L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

…nate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Janardan Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1052/Kol/2013 for assessment year 2008-09 dated 28.08.2017 (iii) Decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Amitabh Construction vs. ACIT reported in 335 ITR 523; (iv) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fabric Pvt. Ltd. reported in 355 ITR 290; (v) CIT vs. Simit P Sheth reported in 356 ITR 451; In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon we hold that the estimation of net profit at 1.25% of the 8 Sumit Jaiswal A.Yr. 2011-12 disputed purchases by the Ld. CIT(A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…ring sales, purchases and other costs, in that event in my humble view there is no basis for addition of amount of sales all over again. In coming to this conclusion I rely on the decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of Amitabh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (335 ITR 523). 5.3 With regard to the conversion of "Debtors" to "Loan and Advances" it is quite obvious that both "Debtors" and "Loan and Advances" appear on the asset side of the balance sheet and the mere act of switching of the same from current assets to loans and advances cannot give rise to income, much less undisclosed income. These are merely the b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Advert Communication, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Jaiswal, DRFor Respondent: S/Shri K. Sampath, Raja Kumar, Advocates
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 69C

…. rate by rejecting books of accounts u/s 145(1) proviso no disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Amitabh Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 335 ITR 523 (Jharkhand) that in the best judgment assessments when the AO has passed contradictory order by holding transaction shown in the account of creditors. 14. In the present case also the AO has accepted returned income and impliedly rejected book results by making two additions. The AO grossly committed error on fact and also against the well se…