Anupam Teleservices v. ITO

381 ITR 258High Court2016#12761 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 1962Section 1965Section 1968Section 40A(3)Section 43B

Judgments citing Anupam Teleservices v. ITO

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

ITA 644/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] Ι.Τ.Α. No. 644/Pat/2024

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 43B

…g decisions: i) Decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Girdharilal Goenka vs. CIT 179 ITR 122 (Cal) ii) CIT vs. CPL Tannery in 318 ITR page 179 iii) Gurdas Garg vs. CIT(A) & Ors. [2016] 6 ITR OL 101 (P & H) iv) Honey Enterprises vs. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Del) v) Union of India vs. Exide Industries Ltd. [2020] 425 ITR 1 vi) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT in [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) The Ld. Counsel draws the attention to the Tribunal over the judgment of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) regarding the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and submitted…

KEDAR NATH SAWHNEY ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-34(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5191/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ITR 134, he submitted that the court has held that the practicability would have to be judged from the angle of a businessman and not that of the Revenue. Referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Honey Enterprises vs. CIT, reported in 381 ITR 258 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in para 36 of the order has held that when the AO does not dispute that the assessee carried on its business in Delhi and its officers had to travel to Bombay to negotiate the purchase of distribution rights and the contention of the assessee that such payments were made as the producers required th…

SHRI NILESHKUMAR BHAGVANBHAI BODARA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

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

ITA 2776/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2776/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13

Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…ce of 30%, the profit shown by the assessee becomes 100%, which is not permissible. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Kothari Sanitation & Tiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 202 CTR (Mad) 277 and Honey enterprise v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Delhi) in support of his contentions. Hence, CIT (A) was not justified in confirming 100% disallowance. It was urged before us that some estimate @5% of purchases should have been disallowed. 6. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that the assessee has is not able to prove that purchases shown on various dates were made from different parties…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 176/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ld. CIT(A) qua salary to employees, would be for the difference, i.e., Rs.14.88 lacs (19.43 - 4.62). The ld. AR would also cite some decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, viz., Anupam Teleservices v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 122 (Guj) and Honey Enterprises v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Del) to the effect that where the genuineness of the payment or the identity is the payee is not dispute, section 40A(3) shall not apply. As aforesaid, there is no finding to this effect by the ld. CIT(A). That apart, the said ruling is inconsistent with the clear provision of the Act; the provision being in law applicable only where the genuine…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 175/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ld. CIT(A) qua salary to employees, would be for the difference, i.e., Rs.14.88 lacs (19.43 - 4.62). The ld. AR would also cite some decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, viz., Anupam Teleservices v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 122 (Guj) and Honey Enterprises v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Del) to the effect that where the genuineness of the payment or the identity is the payee is not dispute, section 40A(3) shall not apply. As aforesaid, there is no finding to this effect by the ld. CIT(A). That apart, the said ruling is inconsistent with the clear provision of the Act; the provision being in law applicable only where the genuine…

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 101/ASR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ld. CIT(A) qua salary to employees, would be for the difference, i.e., Rs.14.88 lacs (19.43 - 4.62). The ld. AR would also cite some decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, viz., Anupam Teleservices v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 122 (Guj) and Honey Enterprises v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Del) to the effect that where the genuineness of the payment or the identity is the payee is not dispute, section 40A(3) shall not apply. As aforesaid, there is no finding to this effect by the ld. CIT(A). That apart, the said ruling is inconsistent with the clear provision of the Act; the provision being in law applicable only where the genuine…

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

ITA 100/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Rashid Dulloo (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…ld. CIT(A) qua salary to employees, would be for the difference, i.e., Rs.14.88 lacs (19.43 - 4.62). The ld. AR would also cite some decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, viz., Anupam Teleservices v. ITO [2014] 366 ITR 122 (Guj) and Honey Enterprises v. CIT [2016] 381 ITR 258 (Del) to the effect that where the genuineness of the payment or the identity is the payee is not dispute, section 40A(3) shall not apply. As aforesaid, there is no finding to this effect by the ld. CIT(A). That apart, the said ruling is inconsistent with the clear provision of the Act; the provision being in law applicable only where the genuine…

RADHAKISHAN HIRALAL JAISWAL,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PARBHANI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 412/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 40Section 40A(3)

…the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO, 191 ITR 667 (SC); ii. Smt. Harshila Chordiya Vs. ITO, 298 ITR 349 (Raj.); iii. Anupam Tele Services Vs. ITO, 366 ITR 122 (Guj.); iv. Honey Enterprises Vs. CIT, 381 ITR 258 (Del.); v. Gurdas Garg Vs. CIT, 63 taxman.com 289 (P & H). 3.4 In respect of other addition the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. On the other hand Shri Ajay Modi representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the payme…

Anupam Teleservices v. ITO (381 ITR 258) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax