Bhor Industries Ltd ACIT 267 ITR 161 (Bom), (ii) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT

267 ITR 200High Court2004#6572 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Bhor Industries Ltd ACIT 267 ITR 161 (Bom), (ii) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT

PURNAGIRI RICE MILLS,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/LKW/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, लखनऊ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW श्री कुल भारत, उपाध्यक्ष एवं श्री ननखखल चौिरी, लेखा सदस्य के समछ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ ITA No.251/LKW/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, v. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. PAN:AAHFP6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant by: Shri Saurabh Gupta, CA प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Add…

ANNU ANIL AGRAWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5473/MUM/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5473/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Annu Anil Agrawal V/S. Acit Cc 4(3), Mumbai Due C-3401/3402 Oberoi बिाम To Restructuring Current Esquire, Mohan Gokhale Jurisdiction Of Appellant Road, Off W. E. Highway, Lies With Acit 41(4)(1), Oberoi Garden City, Mumbai Goregaon East, Mumbai- Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, 400063 Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Admpa0248F Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रनिवादी ..

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. RubyFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…ed u/s 147 of the Act. There is distinction between reason to believe and reason to suspect. Reliance is placed on the following judgements: a. Bhor Industries Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bombay High Court)] b. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bombay High Court)] с. CIT v. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 [(Bombay High Court) d. Balakrishna H. Wani vs. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bombay High Court) P a g e | 9 A.Y. 2011-12 Annu Anil Agrawal 16. Therefore, in the view of the above facts and circumstances, the ground Nos. 1 & 2 stands allowed, and notice under 148 of the Act stands quashed.…

M/S. AVENUE ASIA ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6638/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Avenue Asia Advisors Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Lower Ground Floor, C-4/5, New Delhi. Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi (Pan: Aadcp7362G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, Adv. & Ms. Shweta Kashyap, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.10.2013 Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), New Delhi Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) In Relation To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao") Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Making An Addition To The Total Income Of The Appellant Amounting To Rs. 95,945,630/- In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Dispute Resolution Panel ("Drp") Upholding The Adjustment To The Transfer Price Proposed By The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Tpo").

For Appellant: S/sh. Mukesh Butani, Vishal Kalra & Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

…not to be read as Euclid's theorems nor the observations therein as provisions of statute, observations must be read in the context in which they appear, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases by matching the colour. (v) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. vs. ACIT, 267 ITR 200 (Bom.) for the proposition that no judgement can be read as statute, every decision is an authority for what it decides. (vi) S. Shanmugavel Nadar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another, 263 ITR 658 (SC) for the proposition that for a declaration of law there & ITA No.5680/Del/2011 should be a speaking order, a decision which is not expressed & is not…