CCIT v. Kesaria 254 ITR 434 (SC) 4. CIT v. Jain 85 CCH 66 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Matruprasad

40 SOT 253Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#17933 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing CCIT v. Kesaria 254 ITR 434 (SC) 4. CIT v. Jain 85 CCH 66 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Matruprasad

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…Ltd. ([2002] 254 ITR 434 (SC)) • CIT v. Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. ([2013] 35 taxmann.com 540 (Delhi • PCIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey ([2015] 377 ITR 363(Guj HC)) • ITO v. Bhavesh Prints (P.) Ltd. ([2011] 46 SOT 268 (Ahd. ITAT) • Nitin S. Garg v. Asstt. CIT([2010] 40 SOT 253 (Ahd. ITAT)) 9.19 The Delhi High Court in ITA NO. 1073/2011 in the case of CIT v. Hotline Electronics Ltd has held that unpaid liabilities cannot be added as the assessee's income under section 41(1) merely because they remained unpaid for a sufficiently long time and that it is required of the revenue authorities to show that the liability to pa…

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 41(1)Section 54F

…a deemed income under section 41 (1)the Act. I find that the appellant gets support from the ratio laid down in the case laws (supra) as well as jurisdictional ITAT judgment in the case of M/s. Well Pain Engg. Co. dated 30/12/2011 and Nitin S. Garg Vs. ACIT [40 SOT 253]. In view of ratio laid down in the case laws (supra) and in the circumstances of this case, addition of Rs.52,20,129/- made by the assessing officer cannot be sustained and is, therefore, directed to be deleted. However, ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 36 addition as discussed above of Rs.7,35,000/-_ is_ confirmed u/s.41(1) of I…

FLO DYNE CONTROLS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 983/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Flo Dyne Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 10(3)(1) C/O. Jayesh Sangharjka & Co Llp Charted {Now Known As Income Tax Accountants Officer 15(1)(2)} Unit No. 405, Hind Rajasthan Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, D.S. Phalke Road, Dadar (E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 014

For Appellant: Shri Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 40Section 41(1)

…or has not waived off the amount. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of the above contentions placed reliance on the following decisions: - (i) CIT v. Smt Sita Devi Juneja in ITA.No. 619/2009 Punjab and Haryana High Court. (ii) Nitin S. Garg v. ACIT [40 SOT 253 (Ahmedabad)] (iii) Hareshbhai Jagmiohandas Mehta (HUF) v. ACIT [50 taxman.com 112 (Ahmedabad)] (iv) DSA Engineers (Bombay) v. ITO [30 SOT 51 (Mum)] 8. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below and the case laws relied on. It is not in dispu…

ITO 21(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL K GANATRA, MUMBAI

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

ITA 133/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Income Tax Officer-21(2)(4), Shri Vishal K. Ganatra Room No.503, 5Th Floor, C-10, 3Rd 12,Mahavir Bldg. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Floor, K.D. Road, Vile Bandra Kurla Complex, Parle (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 056. Mumbai-400 051. Pan: Aaxpg 1027Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…t a determining factor in matters relating to remission or cessation of liabilities merely because the outstanding sundry creditor balances appearing in books of account of assessee for a period longer than three years as held in DSA Engineers 30 SOT 31(Mum), 40 SOT 253(Ahd). Even in the case where the liabilities had been outstanding for past several years and assessee had failed to furnish postal addresses of concerned. parties and failed to prove existence of those liabilities, the !TAT in New commercial Mills 175 Taxman 179(Ahd), Allied leather 32 SOT 549(Lko) held that in absence of any cogent reasons and ma…

MADAN MOHLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Madan Mohla, Ito 11(1)(2) 301, Kings Apartments, Juhu Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Tara Road, M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400049 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaopm1470C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjiv M. Shah (Ar) Shri Rajguru (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-3 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 22.07.2011 Passed Against

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ned year:- 1. CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518(SC) 2. CIT vs. SI Group 379 ITR 326(SC) 3. CCIT v. Kesaria 254 ITR 434 (SC) 4. CIT v. Jain 85 CCH 66 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Matruprasad 377 ITR 363(Guj) 6. ITO v. Bhavesh 46 SOT 268(AHM) 7. Mitin v. ACIT 40 SOT 253 (AHM) 4 Madan Mohla 3.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.6. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and judgments relied upon before us. The admitted facts are that the impugned creditors were continued to be shown by the assessee in its balance sheet. It means that assessee continue…