Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. v. ACIT

397 ITR 573High Court2017#24808 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. v. ACIT

Chetan Bipinbhai Bha vs. Ar, Suratvs.Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bardoli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Chetan Bipinbhai Bhavsar Income Tax Officer, 304, Monalisha Complex, Vs. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Shastri Road, Bardoli– Office Aaykar Bhavan, Station 394601 Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjpb 0949 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…epositors/lenders confirmed the transactions also and therefore if anything is to be done the same may be verified in the case of depositors/lenders, for that reliance can be placed on following decisions:  Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. vs. ACIT (2017) 397 ITR 573 (Guj) ITA.620/SRT/2023/AY.2017-18 Chetan B Bhavsar  CIT vs. Ranchhodbhai Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 taxmann.com. 35(Guj)  DCIT vs. Rohibi Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj)  CIT vs. Orisa Corporation (P.) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC)  CIT vs. Sayachi Chandrasekhar 992 of 2013(Guj)  PCIT vs. M/s Skylark Build 616 of 2016 (Bom)  Rajhans Construction…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Shri Chandresh Nanubhai Patel, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. A. L. SAINI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran K. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Senior-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…fore, it is not a case where the transactions are not reflected in the balance sheet as mentioned in the assessment order. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) (397 ITR 573) (Guj), wherein it was held that if the amount was received by cheques and transactions were confirmed by the payer, no addition is justified u/s 68 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further relies on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchhodbhai Jivabhai Nakhava (2012) 208 taxmann.com 35 (Guj). 11. We have heard both…

D. J. Stock Broking Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 313/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri P.D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

…ontention, he made reference to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava, 208 TAXMAN 35. He also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 397 ITR 573 (Guj) as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa corporation Ltd., 159 ITR 78. He filed written submissions, and in his written submissions he further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure P.Ltd., 394 ITR 680 (Bom), and Shri Shree Giriraj Ferromet P.Lt…

Associated Transrail Structure Ltd. v. ACIT (397 ITR 573) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax