Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT

84 ITR 307High Court1972#5952 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 68Section 131Section 69CSection 115BBESection 153ASection 131(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 131(1)section 5(2)creditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumsource of sourceshell companyentry operatorprincipal commissioner of income-taxborrowed satisfactionsection 250(4)share application money

Judgments citing Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1069/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Adhunik Infrastructures Kolkata Vs. Private Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCA1315L Appearances: Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR. Assessee represented by : Miraj D. Shah, AR. Date of concluding the hearing : 16-January-2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the ord…

MANOJ ANAND,GUWAHATI vs. ITO W-2(2) GHY, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 273/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Manoj Anand Ito W-2(2), Ghy Flat 4D, Garima Grand, Aaykar Bhawan, Christian Basti, Departmental Representative B. G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Baruah Road, Guwahati-781007, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpa9883C

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jha, DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

…). The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 441 (Cal.) and Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). 5. Further to be noted that where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. It has been further held in A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) that while drawing the inference, it cannot be ass…

SONTHALIA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.958/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sonthalia Capital Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata 3Rd Unit No.3, Floor, Ideal Centre, 9, Ajc Bose Road, Circus Aenue, So Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aabck 4477 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Assessee Company Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The 2017-18 & Declaring Total Income Of Rs. Rs. 10,14,610/-. Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued & Served On The Appellant Company & Duly Complied With. Subsequently Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed On 24.12.2019 Determining Total Income At Rs.59,14,610/-. While Framing The Assessment Order, The Assessing Officer Has Made Additions Under Section 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.25,00,000/- & 24,00,000/- With Respect To Loan Received From Linkwise Dealtrade Private Limited (In Short ‘Ldpl’) & Ambala Trafin Private Limited (In Short ‘Atpl’), Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributor…

DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 317/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributor…

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. VIKRMA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 316/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributor…

SHASHIKALA BHIMACHARYA MALAGI,GOKAK, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD-1, GOKAK, GOKAK, KARNATKA

The appeal is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 180/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 180/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shashikala Bhimacharya Malagi 0, Soubhagya, Kalyan Housing Colony, Gokak, Belgaum-591307 Pan : Bdypm3708B . . . . . . .Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gokak. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. 1055706480(1) Dt. 04/09/2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 20/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Himanshu Gandhi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

…demonetization, revenue authorities perfectly justified in drawing an inference that said sum was an income and liable to be taxed accordingly. This view finds fortified in ‘Chunilal Rastogi Vs CIT’ [1955, 28 ITR 341 (Pat.)], ‘Anil Kumar Singh Vs CIT’ [1972, 84 ITR 307 (Cal.)], ‘M. L. Tewary Vs CIT’ [1955, 27 ITR 630 (PAT.)] Per contra, if assessee prove of having sufficient SBN balance in hand prior to such demonetisation deposits, then succeeds in explaining nature & source in view of ‘Narendra G. Goradia vs. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 571 (Bom)]. Since neither party proved their version of contention which could pass…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…). The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 441 (Cal.) and Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). Further to be noted that where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. It has been further held in A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) that while drawing the inference, it cannot be assume…

DEPUTY COMMISSOENR OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. DOLLAR HOLDING PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

…). The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 441 (Cal.) and Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). Further to be noted that where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. It has been further held in A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) that while drawing the inference, it cannot be assume…

DECPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CHIRAG JEWELLERS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1559/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1559/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-3(1) Chirag Jewellers 110, Shantipally, Flat 17A, Rameshwara Mansion, 10/4A Vs Kolkata-700107 Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 West Bengal [Pan : Aabfc7914L] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…). The explanation given by the assessee cannot be rejected arbitrarily or capriciously, without sufficient ground on suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds Lal Mohan Krishna Lal Paul v. CIT [1944] 12 ITR 441 (Cal.) and Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT [1972] 84 ITR 307 (Cal.). 5. Further to be noted that where the assessee furnishes full details regarding the creditors, it is up to the department to pursue the matter further to locate those creditors and examine their creditworthiness. It has been further held in A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 328 (Mad.) that while drawing the inference, it cannot be ass…

SUPER IRON FOUNDRY,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 36, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 270/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…that there has been some illegalities in the assessee's transaction. Thus, more importantly, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving (1963) 49 ITR 112 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the lender M/s. Fast Glow Distributor…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…til (1996) 1 SC 169. 179 (xix) Life Insurance Corporation of India V. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410, (xx) 418 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112. 120 (SO) (xxi) D.Yasodamma, Gudur V. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 515, 517 (AP) (xxii) Anil Kumar Singh V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (xxiii) Abu Bucker Sait V. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad) (xxiv) Bhagavan Prasad Mishra V. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 97 (Orissa) (xxv) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (xxvi) (xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhoot…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…til (1996) 1 SC 169. 179 (xix) Life Insurance Corporation of India V. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410, (xx) 418 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112. 120 (SO) (xxi) D.Yasodamma, Gudur V. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 515, 517 (AP) (xxii) Anil Kumar Singh V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (xxiii) Abu Bucker Sait V. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad) (xxiv) Bhagavan Prasad Mishra V. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 97 (Orissa) (xxv) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (xxvi) (xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhoot…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…til (1996) 1 SC 169. 179 (xix) Life Insurance Corporation of India V. CIT (1996) 219 ITR 410, (xx) 418 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee V. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112. 120 (SO) (xxi) D.Yasodamma, Gudur V. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 515, 517 (AP) (xxii) Anil Kumar Singh V. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal) (xxiii) Abu Bucker Sait V. CIT (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad) (xxiv) Bhagavan Prasad Mishra V. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 97 (Orissa) (xxv) Tolaram Daga V. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) (xxvi) (xxvii) CIT V. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) Sarogi Credit Corporation V. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat) . (xxix) Commissioner of Income Tax V. Shiv Dhoot…

SUNIL KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehara (Addl.CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143Section 69ASection 80C

…deleted. 12. The ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal taking into reliance of Hon’ble Patna and Calcutta High Court in case of Chunilal Rastogi vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR (Pat) and Anil Kumar Singh vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 307 and M.L/ Tewary vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 630 (Pat.) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Leela Devi vs. ITO in ITA No. 1423/Del/1420,which is not relevant to the present case. Where in both cases the addition is made by unexplained cash credit into the bank account, but the present case the assessee has explained the source of cash deposits made b…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…s, more importantly, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Versus Daulat Ram Rawatmull 9, the onus of proving 4 (1963) 49 ITR 112 5 (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) 6 (1944) 12 ITR 441 (Cal) 7 (1972 84 ITR 307 (Cal) 8 (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) 9 (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 11 of 14 that the appellant was not the real was on the party who claims it to be so. Bearing the above legal principles in mind, if we examine the case on hand, it is clear that the assessing officer issued show cause notice only in respect of one of the len…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS, , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 253/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणमपीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्यएिं श्री धड.एस .लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner of Vs. M/s Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:APSRTC Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [PAN : AAIFH2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्र…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. MARS REALTORS P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7180/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…se of [CIT .P Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)I1Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v .CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289, 293 (Cal). [Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR (AP): Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT, (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal); Abu Bucker Sait v CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad).In this background, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 23. In the above paras, we have noted the findings of the CIT(A) in some detail, only to show that the CIT(A) has appropriately dealt with the : 16 : ITA Nos. 7177 to 7180/Mum/2016 various obj…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7179/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…se of [CIT .P Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)I1Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v .CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289, 293 (Cal). [Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR (AP): Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT, (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal); Abu Bucker Sait v CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad).In this background, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 23. In the above paras, we have noted the findings of the CIT(A) in some detail, only to show that the CIT(A) has appropriately dealt with the : 16 : ITA Nos. 7177 to 7180/Mum/2016 various obj…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7178/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…se of [CIT .P Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)I1Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v .CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289, 293 (Cal). [Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR (AP): Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT, (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal); Abu Bucker Sait v CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad).In this background, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 23. In the above paras, we have noted the findings of the CIT(A) in some detail, only to show that the CIT(A) has appropriately dealt with the : 16 : ITA Nos. 7177 to 7180/Mum/2016 various obj…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. DEV LAND AND HOUSING P.LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…se of [CIT .P Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC)I1Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v .CIT (2003) 263 ITR 289, 293 (Cal). [Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR (SC) 112, 120, 121, D. YasodammaGudur v. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR (AP): Anil Kumar Singh v. CIT, (1972) 84 ITR 307 (Cal); Abu Bucker Sait v CIT, (1970) 76 ITR 362 (Mad).In this background, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Act. 23. In the above paras, we have noted the findings of the CIT(A) in some detail, only to show that the CIT(A) has appropriately dealt with the : 16 : ITA Nos. 7177 to 7180/Mum/2016 various obj…