What is Anupam Tele Services v. ITO authority for?

Section 40A(3) disallowances are not absolute; genuine and bonafide cash payments, where the payee's identity is established and business expediency is proven, fall outside its scope, as the section's purpose is to curb unaccounted money, not disallow genuine expenditure.

How many judgments cite Anupam Tele Services v. ITO?

124 judgments on BharatTax cite Anupam Tele Services v. ITO (366 ITR 122), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Anupam Tele Services v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 40A(3), Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 132(4A), Section 133A, Section 147.

Anupam Tele Services v. ITO (366 ITR 122)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. KONARK RAJHANS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR

Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

…ective sale deeds were duly furnished to Ld. AO. In this background, the assessee made out a case of business expediency.Reliance was also placed on various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Anupam Tele Services (43 Taxmann.com 199)as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Walford Transport (Eastern India) Ltd. (124 Taxman 538) holding that these provisions were to check evasion of tax and flow of unaccounted money. Where the authorities were satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction and the identity of the payees, there would b…

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

…edbytheBoard’sCircularhad erred in reversing the finding reached by the Commissioner (Appeals). The addition of Rs. 40,13,000/- could not be made under section 40A(3).’’ 11 Sh. Murli Dhar Upadhyay, jaipur. In the case of Anupam Tele Services vs ITO (2014), 366 ITR 122, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed as under:- ‘’The terms of section 40A(3) arenot absolute and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine andbonafide transactions are taken out of the sweep of the section.’’ Moreover, the contract of this work is in existence since2006 but no such disallowance was made in earlier years. Taking into c…

VIVEK GARG,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2463/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2463/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Vivek Garg, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac/ B-141, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, Income Tax Officer, West Delhi, New Delhi-110059 New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Btgpg0010A Assessee By: Sh. Abhishek Jain, Ca & Ms. Sunidhi Sharma, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073459244(1) Dated 19.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…the aim and objective of introduction of the impugned statutory provision could not be altogether ignored which was to curs the practice of ploughing of unaccounted money in the system. The assessee on the other hand quotes Anupam Tele Service Vs. ITO (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj.) that such an overwhelming genuine business expenditure could indeed be allowed even it is not covered under rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules prescribing various exigencies in cash payments representing business expenditure. Learned counsel lastly states that the assessee is very much ready to prove his genuineness of the impugned business…

M/S BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS ,GWALIOR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 26/AGR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Blue Lotus Developers Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, 101, The Empire, 33, City Delhi Center, Gwalior M.P.-474011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaifb4692D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sharma, advFor Respondent: Sh. Shalender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Blue Lotus Developers Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC, 101, The Empire, 33, City Delhi Center, Gwalior M.P.-474011 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AAIFB4692D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rajendra Sharma, adv. Respondent by : Sh. Shalender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against Commissioner of Income…

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE .P.LTD,ETAH vs. NFAC , NEW DELHI

Appeals is allowed

ITA 211/AGR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Nfac, Kothiwal Ice & Storage Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Sadabad Road, Jaleshar, Etah, Uttar Pradesh Pan :Aacck1353P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06.02.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. NFAC, Kothiwal Ice and Storage Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Sadabad Road, Jaleshar, Etah, Uttar Pradesh PAN :AACCK1353P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.02.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National…

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1568/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra Pan : Aalcs3844A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1568/PUN/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Ram Cargo Private Limited, Vs. ITO, Ward-6(5), 3-A & B, Archies Court, Pune Shankar Shet Road, Pune 411 037 Maharashtra PAN : AALCS3844A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Mutha Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari : Date of hearing 11.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee pertainin…

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 383/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited, Circle – 1(1)(2), 708, Cadila Corporate Campus Ahmedabad. Vs. Sarkhej Dholka Road, Bhat, Ahmedabad – 382 210. [PAN – AAACC 6251 E] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, 708, Cadila Corporate Campus, Circle – 1(1)(2), Sa…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 345/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 144Section 2Section 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 43BSection 80I

…ITA Nos.345 & 383/Ahd/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Income Tax, Limited, Circle – 1(1)(2), 708, Cadila Corporate Campus Ahmedabad. Vs. Sarkhej Dholka Road, Bhat, Ahmedabad – 382 210. [PAN – AAACC 6251 E] Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals The Deputy Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, 708, Cadila Corporate Campus, Circle – 1(1)(2), Sa…

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 365/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…sessee and claimed as expenditure. There are certain judgements, which are supporting the assessee fortifying their points, which are as follows: a) CIT & Anr. Vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (323 ITR 351) (Karn.) b) Anupama Tele Services Vs. ITO (366 ITR 122) (Guj.) c) Harshila Chordia (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), wherein deleted the disallowance in case of genuine business transactions, wherein payments were made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 9…

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 364/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…sessee and claimed as expenditure. There are certain judgements, which are supporting the assessee fortifying their points, which are as follows: a) CIT & Anr. Vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (323 ITR 351) (Karn.) b) Anupama Tele Services Vs. ITO (366 ITR 122) (Guj.) c) Harshila Chordia (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), wherein deleted the disallowance in case of genuine business transactions, wherein payments were made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 9…

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 363/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…sessee and claimed as expenditure. There are certain judgements, which are supporting the assessee fortifying their points, which are as follows: a) CIT & Anr. Vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (323 ITR 351) (Karn.) b) Anupama Tele Services Vs. ITO (366 ITR 122) (Guj.) c) Harshila Chordia (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), wherein deleted the disallowance in case of genuine business transactions, wherein payments were made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 9…

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 362/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Ms. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 40A(3)

…sessee and claimed as expenditure. There are certain judgements, which are supporting the assessee fortifying their points, which are as follows: a) CIT & Anr. Vs. Balaji Engineering & Construction Works (323 ITR 351) (Karn.) b) Anupama Tele Services Vs. ITO (366 ITR 122) (Guj.) c) Harshila Chordia (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), wherein deleted the disallowance in case of genuine business transactions, wherein payments were made because of business expediency. 5.1 On the other hand, certain High Courts wherein confirmed similar disallowance including Bombay High Court in case of Madhav Govinda Dulshet Vs. ITO 259 Taxman 9…

SIVAKARTHIKEYAN TRANSPORTS,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 KARUR, KARUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.970/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakarthikeyan Transports, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Pasuapthypuram, Vs. Ward-2, Karur – 639001. Karur. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaias 3396N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Nfac], Delhi [Hereinafter “Cit(A)] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1054458891(1), Dated 19.07.2023. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: (A) The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A) Is Against The Probabilities & Evidence Of Facts Put Forth Before It & Also Contrary To Settled Principles With Regard To The Law On Taxation. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.970/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakarthikeyan Transports, The Income Tax Officer, 23, Pasuapthypuram, Vs. Ward-2, Karur – 639001. Karur. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: AAIAS 3396N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT सुनवाई की…

MURSHID AHMED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3124/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Murshid Ahmed, Vs Ito, J-100, Ashok Chowk, Ward-1(5), Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Faridabad, Haryana. Rajasthan-302004. Pan-Aagpa2309E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad Dated 31.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2007- 08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…T Delhi Bench C in the case of M/s Geo Connect Ltd. Vs. DCIT, New Delhi in ITA No. 2896 of 2018 vide order dated 29.08.2022; 3. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Etc. Vs. Income Tax Officer (1991) 191 ITR 0667 SC; 4. Anupam Tele Services Vs. Income Tax Officer (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj); 5. A Daga Royal Arts Vs. Income Tax Officer (2018) 53 CCH 0086 Jaipur Trib; 6. Nobel Advertisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2022) 65 CCH 0002 Del Trib; 7. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 0136 Del HC; and 8. Naresh Kumar Garg Prop. Garg Electricals Vs. ACIT (2019) 57 CCH 0363 Del Trib.” 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Re…

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 40(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.292/Ahd/2021 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sangath Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income 7, Madhupuri Flats, Kabir Chowk, Tax, Jainnagar, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAOCS2120G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement 15.02.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

In the result ground No. 2 & 3 of the appeal of the revenue stands rejected

ITA 89/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 89/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs M/S Narmada Drinks Private Limited Circle-1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sirgitti Industrial Area, Tifra, Bilaspur Mahima Complex, Bilaspur (C.G.) (C.G.) Pan: Aaacn5880C (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 92C

…6, PN 35 to 38 of PB. Relevant observation of Hon'ble High Court at para no. 4 & 5 of Hon'ble High Court. ▪ Geo Connent Ltd. vs DCIT (2022) 65 CCH 589 (Del.), at PN 89 to 106 of PB, relevant findings at PN 102 & 105 of PB. ▪ Anupam Tele Services vs ITO (2014) 366 ITR 122 (Guj.), PN 59 to 73 of PB, relevant findings at PN 67. ▪ A. Daga Royal Arts vs ITO (2018) 196 TTJ 541 (Jp.), PN 74 to 97 of PB, relevant findings at PN 89 & 90 of PB. ▪ CIT vs Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. India P. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 486 (Del.). ▪ DCIT vs RCP Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Tax No. 154 of 2017 (CG) 14 Narmada Drinks Pvt. Ltd. 15. With afore…

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/GTY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Prakash Das Dcit, Circle-3, Guwahati Kumud Enclave, Nawaram Vs. Kakati Path, Rehabari, Guwahati-781008. Pan: Ajipd 5193 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ramesh Goenka, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.02.2020 Of Ld. Cit(A), Guwahati-2 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). That Neither The Learned Assessing Officer Was Justified In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,43,73,603/- On Account Of Proportionate Direct Expenses & Adding The Same In The Closing Stock Of The Appellant Nor The Learned Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Aforesaid Disallowance/Addition.

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Goenka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…rom the assessment order that neither the Assessing 10 Jyoti Prakash Das A.Y. 2017-18 Officer nor the CIT(Appeal) has disbelieved the genuineness of the transaction. There was no dispute that the purchases were genuine.” Anupam Tete Services vs ITO in (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 199 (Guj): "Section 40A( 3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Business disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits (Rule 6DD(j)-Assessment year 2006- 07 - Assessee was working as an agent of Tata Tele Services Limited for distributing mobile cards and recharge vouchers - Principal compa…

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 9/IND/2023[22013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

…ere was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 4 of 30 Anupam Tele Services vs. ITO 366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar situatio…

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 8/IND/2023[22012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

…ere was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 4 of 30 Anupam Tele Services vs. ITO 366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar situatio…

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, appeals of assesse for A

ITA 7/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)

…ere was no scope of any tax avoidance. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Page 3 of 30 ITA No. 6 to 9 & 11/Ind/2023 Essarjee Construction P. Ltd. Page 4 of 30 Anupam Tele Services vs. ITO 366 ITR 122 and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has observed that paramount consideration of s.40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions when neither the genuineness of the payment nor the identity of the payee were in dispute and the payments were made in the compelling circumstances and on account of peculiar situatio…

Anupam Tele Services v. ITO

What is Anupam Tele Services v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Anupam Tele Services v. ITO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA CIRCLE, PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA vs. KONARK RAJHANS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, PANCHKULA

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

VIVEK GARG,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

M/S BLUE LOTUS DEVELOPERS ,GWALIOR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), GWALIOR

KOTHIWAL ICE AND COLD STORAGE .P.LTD,ETAH vs. NFAC , NEW DELHI

SHREE RAM CARGO PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SHET ROAD, PUNE

M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. , AHMEDABAD

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

SIVAKARTHIKEYAN TRANSPORTS,KARUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 KARUR, KARUR

MURSHID AHMED,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), FARIDABAD

SANGATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BILASPUR vs. MESERS NARMADA DRINKS PRIVATE LIMITED, BILASPUR

JYOTI PRAKASH DAS,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT- 1(1), BHOPAL

M/S ESSARGEE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT- 1(1), BHOPAL