Babulal Grand Son Family Trust v. ITO

31 ITD 52Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1984#9166 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing Babulal Grand Son Family Trust v. ITO

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…the decision in the case of Manmal Jain v. ITO (10) 39 SOT 5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which are accepted by the AO do not find place in the assessment order.…

M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI STATIONERY & FANCY MART,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 35/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…Pr.CIT. Therefore, it shows the guess work of the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the same cannot be a basis for revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) in the case of Babulal Grand Son Family Trust Vs. ITO repeated in 31 ITD 52 Delhi. 7.4. The 5th issue was the printouts taken from the lap top during the course of survey. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the printouts of accounts for the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were taken from the laptop and it was observed from the said extracts, that the accounts relating to Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards pertaining to the assesse…

M/S. SRI VIJAYALAKSHMI STATIONERY & FANCY MART,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 34/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…Pr.CIT. Therefore, it shows the guess work of the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the same cannot be a basis for revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) in the case of Babulal Grand Son Family Trust Vs. ITO repeated in 31 ITD 52 Delhi. 7.4. The 5th issue was the printouts taken from the lap top during the course of survey. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the printouts of accounts for the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were taken from the laptop and it was observed from the said extracts, that the accounts relating to Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards pertaining to the assesse…

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 33/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…Pr.CIT. Therefore, it shows the guess work of the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the same cannot be a basis for revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) in the case of Babulal Grand Son Family Trust Vs. ITO repeated in 31 ITD 52 Delhi. 7.4. The 5th issue was the printouts taken from the lap top during the course of survey. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the printouts of accounts for the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were taken from the laptop and it was observed from the said extracts, that the accounts relating to Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards pertaining to the assesse…

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 32/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…Pr.CIT. Therefore, it shows the guess work of the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the same cannot be a basis for revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) in the case of Babulal Grand Son Family Trust Vs. ITO repeated in 31 ITD 52 Delhi. 7.4. The 5th issue was the printouts taken from the lap top during the course of survey. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the printouts of accounts for the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were taken from the laptop and it was observed from the said extracts, that the accounts relating to Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards pertaining to the assesse…

G. VENKATA KRISHNA,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ITO,, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeals of the assessees for the Assessment Years 2010-

ITA 31/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.31& 33/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) G.Venkata Krishna Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop.Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards Ward-1 11-25-167, Main Road, One Town Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1246F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11) G.Venkata Raman Income Tax Officer Partner.Sri Dhanalakshmi Ward-1(1) Stationery Mart Vijayawada 11-54-225, Jai Hind Market Main Road, One Town, Vijayawada [Pan :Acppg1245G] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Sri Vijayalakshmi Stationery & Income Tax Officer Fancy Mart, D.No.11-25-167 Ward-1(1) Main Road, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Aaifs1693M] निर्धाऩिती की ओि से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subramanyam, Ar िधजस्व की ओि से/ Revenue By : Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2018 घोषणध की तधिीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…Pr.CIT. Therefore, it shows the guess work of the Ld.Pr.CIT, hence, the same cannot be a basis for revision u/s 263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi (Special Bench) in the case of Babulal Grand Son Family Trust Vs. ITO repeated in 31 ITD 52 Delhi. 7.4. The 5th issue was the printouts taken from the lap top during the course of survey. The Ld.Pr.CIT observed that the printouts of accounts for the calendar years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were taken from the laptop and it was observed from the said extracts, that the accounts relating to Ghantasala Manikyala Rao Cards pertaining to the assesse…