Ashok Nanda v. DCIT: 54 ITR(T) 54 (Indore Trib.)

184 TTJ 702Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#5442 most cited

What is Ashok Nanda v. DCIT: 54 ITR(T) 54 (Indore Trib.) authority for?

Transactions with parties cannot be doubted and adjusted against the assessee's income merely because the parties fail to appear or respond to notices. If sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be disallowed.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ashok Nanda v DCIT · 54 ITR(T) 54 · 184 TTJ 702 · trade creditors · inadequate enquiry · revision u/s 263 · non application of mind · section 263(1) · lack of enquiry · malabar industrial · section 194a · section 44a · section 40a(3) · presumptive taxation

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing Ashok Nanda v. DCIT: 54 ITR(T) 54 (Indore Trib.)

M/S.Rolex Products, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 984/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Rolex Products Ito-27(3)(2) C-12, 4Th Floor, Samarpan New Tower No.6, Room No. 418, Maneklal Estate, Lbs Marg, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aahfr2053H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manish V. Shah With Niyanta Mehta (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-25

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah with Niyanta Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 69Section 69C

…IT Vs. Nikung Exim Enterprises (372 ITR 619) (Bombay), Gujarat High Court in case of PCIT versus Tejua Rohit kumar Kapadia Tax Appeal No. 691/2017(Gujarat High Court), Arun Shimpy Versus ITO (53 ITR(Tri) 151)(Mumbai Tribunal) and ACIT Versus Mahesh K Shah (184 TTJ 702) (Mumbai Tri). In alternative submission the learned AR of the assessee submits that once it is established that purchases were actually made then only profit embedded in the same could be added in the income of the assessee. In support of his submission the learned AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in SVPHN Steel…