AP Singh, Abdul Rahman v. CIT

54 SOT 398Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18131 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing AP Singh, Abdul Rahman v. CIT

MR. RATANSINGH M. RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT - 32(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

…t. It is no denial of natural justice if the ITO refuses to produce an informant for being cross-examined by the assessee". The Hon'ble Court went on to hold that the statement could be used against the assessee. • In the case of Champa Lal Choudhary vs DCIT, 54 SOT 398, [ITA nos.35 to 37/JP/2012] dated 25/05/2012, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has held as under: "5.3.... In this regard, we may add that the onus to prove its purchase as genuine is on the assessee, and when year after year - similar issues having come up in its case for the preceding as well as the succeeding years - of such suppliers suddenly di…

M/S. GUPTA BROS. (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1111/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Gupta Bros. (India), Vs Acit, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafg4325Q Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Construction Contractor Engaged In The Business Of Repairs Of Civil Works. During The Year The Assessee Has Incurred Labour Expenses Of Rs.11.39 Crores Against The Total Work Executed Of Rs.62.81 Crores. The Assessing Officer Held That The 18.14% Of The Labour Expenses Over The Turnover Is Far More Excessive Than The Labour Expenses In The Earlier Years Of 15.22% To 16.99%. He Further Held That The Labour Payments Been Made In The Months February & March Are To The Tune Of Rs.1.29 Crores & The Gross Turnover For The March Month Is Rs.9.97 Crores & The Percentage Of Labour Is About 13.26%. Based On Comparison Of The Payments Of The Ita Nos. 1110 & 1111/Del/2015 2 Gupta Bros. (India) Earlier Years, The Assessing Officer Has Disallowed Rs.25 Lacs On Account Of Labour Payment.

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/s Gupta Bros. (India), Vs ACIT, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFG4325Q Assessee by : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is…

M/S. GUPTA BROS. (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1110/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Gupta Bros. (India), Vs Acit, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafg4325Q Assessee By : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Construction Contractor Engaged In The Business Of Repairs Of Civil Works. During The Year The Assessee Has Incurred Labour Expenses Of Rs.11.39 Crores Against The Total Work Executed Of Rs.62.81 Crores. The Assessing Officer Held That The 18.14% Of The Labour Expenses Over The Turnover Is Far More Excessive Than The Labour Expenses In The Earlier Years Of 15.22% To 16.99%. He Further Held That The Labour Payments Been Made In The Months February & March Are To The Tune Of Rs.1.29 Crores & The Gross Turnover For The March Month Is Rs.9.97 Crores & The Percentage Of Labour Is About 13.26%. Based On Comparison Of The Payments Of The Ita Nos. 1110 & 1111/Del/2015 2 Gupta Bros. (India) Earlier Years, The Assessing Officer Has Disallowed Rs.25 Lacs On Account Of Labour Payment.

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1110/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No. 1111/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/s Gupta Bros. (India), Vs ACIT, 232, Jor Bagh, Circle-38(1), New Delhi-110003 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFG4325Q Assessee by : Sh. S. Krishna & V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 31.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 20.08.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is…

INTER CARAT JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and Stay

ITA 307/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 148Section 69C

…owing case laws to come to the conclusion that the entire purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex should be disallowed:- (a) CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (1987)(164 ITR 102)(Guj) (b) CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (2011)(203 Taman 123)(Delhi) (c) Champalal Choudhary (2012)(54 SOT 398)(JP) 3 M/s. Inter Carat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. (d) J.R Solvent Industries (P) Ltd Vs. CIT (209 Taxman 18)(P & H) (e) CIT Vs. La Medica (250 ITR 575)(Delhi) The AO further held that even if the assessee was able to reconcile the quantity details, yet the assessee could not prove the purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex. Accordingly he held that it ha…

R.R.CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 61/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 61/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 62/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 20 10-11)

Section 133(6)

…otel (164 ITR 102), Delhi high Court in the case of Modi Stone Ltd (203 Taxman 123), Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of J.R Solvent industries P Ltd (209 Taxman 18) and the decision rendered by Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of Champa Lal Choudhary (54 SOT 398) and observed that the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases lie upon the assessee and mere production of vouchers would not prove the genuineness of purchases. The AO also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. La Medica (250 ITR 575), wherein it was held that the purchases claimed to have been ma…

AP Singh, Abdul Rahman v. CIT (54 SOT 398) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax