Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. v. ITO

3 SOT 670Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#15579 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2022.

Judgments citing Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. v. ITO

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 593/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) [2003]81 TTJ (AII.) 995. 4. Jagadamba Construction Co. v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) 5. Sumak Powercap Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 90 TTJ (Lucknow) 420 The appellant relied upon on various court cases mentioned in its submission. Moreover I also observed in the assessment order that the AO himself contradicting his finding on the facts mentioned in the assessment order, I am unable to accept AO's conclusions that loan credito…

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 592/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) [2003]81 TTJ (AII.) 995. 4. Jagadamba Construction Co. v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) 5. Sumak Powercap Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 90 TTJ (Lucknow) 420 The appellant relied upon on various court cases mentioned in its submission. Moreover I also observed in the assessment order that the AO himself contradicting his finding on the facts mentioned in the assessment order, I am unable to accept AO's conclusions that loan credito…

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

…relied upon the following cases: 1. Mohar Singh v. Dy. CIT[2002]77 TTJ(Agra)218 2. Dy. CIT v. Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd. [2003] 81 TTJ(Lucknow) 389. 3. ITO v. Matadin Snehlata (HUF) [2003]81 TTJ (AII.) 995. 4. Jagadamba Construction Co. v. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) 5. Sumak Powercap Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2005] 90 TTJ (Lucknow) 420 The appellant relied upon on various court cases mentioned in its submission. Moreover I also observed in the assessment order that the AO himself contradicting his finding on the facts mentioned in the assessment order, I am unable to accept AO's conclusions that loan credito…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…the pre-existing fund of concealed income or they were reasonably explained by reference to the concealed income earned in the relevant year. Reliance is placed on the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. VS. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) e. (c) Radhey Shyam Tanwar Vs. Asst. CIT /20C2] 77 TTJ (Jodh. 505.) 58. From going through the above decisions it can be inferred that if there are two funds one which is already taxed and other has not and there was remittances during the accounting year for certain sum, the source of which is not indicated then the presumption is that t…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…the pre-existing fund of concealed income or they were reasonably explained by reference to the concealed income earned in the relevant year. Reliance is placed on the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. VS. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) e. (c) Radhey Shyam Tanwar Vs. Asst. CIT /20C2] 77 TTJ (Jodh. 505.) 58. From going through the above decisions it can be inferred that if there are two funds one which is already taxed and other has not and there was remittances during the accounting year for certain sum, the source of which is not indicated then the presumption is that t…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…the pre-existing fund of concealed income or they were reasonably explained by reference to the concealed income earned in the relevant year. Reliance is placed on the case of Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. VS. ITO [2004] 3 SOT 670 (Jodh.) e. (c) Radhey Shyam Tanwar Vs. Asst. CIT /20C2] 77 TTJ (Jodh. 505.) 58. From going through the above decisions it can be inferred that if there are two funds one which is already taxed and other has not and there was remittances during the accounting year for certain sum, the source of which is not indicated then the presumption is that t…

Anantharam Veersinghaiah & Co, (supra). Jaqadnmba Construction CO. v. ITO (3 SOT 670) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax