Chaudhary & Co (1996) 217 ITR 431 (All); George & Sons. v. ACIT

291 ITR 44High Court2007#13984 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 195(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 68personcompanytotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing Chaudhary & Co (1996) 217 ITR 431 (All); George & Sons. v. ACIT

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 147/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv (Physical)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…ant's case has been found covered by the following judgments: - i. CIT v/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) ii. Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii. iSona Electric Co. v/s. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) iv. Tam Tam Pedda Guruna Reddy v/s. JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) In the case of M/s. Capaxo Logistics Pvt Ltd. ‘’14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the assessee has received amount of loan and advances for Rs. 5 crore each from Shri Rameshbhai Thakor and Shri Vinod Sharma which was treated as unexplained cash credit under…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

…has been found to be covered by the following judgments as well:- i) CIT V/s. Meta Chem Industries 245 ITR 160(MP) ii) Nemichand Kolhani v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii) Sona Electirc Co V/s CIT 152 ITR 507(Delhi) iv) Tarn Tarn Pedda Guruna Reddy V/s JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) Finding:- On appraisal of these fresh evidences along with the submissions made by the appellant including the copy of the appellate order of the ClT(A)-5, Ahmedabad passed in the case of Shri Surendra M. Shah and binding judgments of various High Courts, the identity of Smt. Hansaben M. Patel is proved beyond doubt as she appeared before…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMJEEBHAI DESAI, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 568/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.R. &
Section 69A

…ment, attaching the aadhar copy (I.D. proof) were furnished. The Assessing Officer has brushed aside all his data as stereotype and went on to make the addition. The Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy vs JCIT And another 291 ITR 44 (Karn) "Cash credit- Genuineness of transaction - Assessee to prove only identity of creditor mere Finding that amount in question is unexplained income Not acceptable - Addition on account of unexplained credit - Not justified" In the case of CIT vs Rohini Builders 254 ITR 275 SC, the apex court has decided that if the assessee is engaged in bu…

MR. ASHISH JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC-XXVII, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the Assessee’s ground No

ITA 1931/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Mr. Ashish Jhunjhunwala, V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 10/4, Aliore Park Place, Xxviii, Kolkata Kolkata-700 027 [Pan No.Acppj 2618 E] अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" की ओर से/By Assessee Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- This Caption Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining The Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Central-Ii, Kolkata, Dated 28.08.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 22.11.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereunder:- “1.The Orders Passed By The Lower Authorities Are Arbitrary, Erroneous, Without Proper Reasons, Invalid & Bad In Law, To The Extent To Which They Are Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…ed on no evidence. If the conclusion is based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises. The ld Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of TamTamPeddaGuruva Reddy Vs. JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar) wherein the facts of the case were that the assessee, a contractor, executed numerous contracts and some of them were executed in out of the way places where banking facilities were poor. For the assessment year 1992-93, the assessing authority added a sum of Rs.2,87,000 on account of loan advanced by one R to the assessee’s income. The Trib…

RAJ WINES,NAVI MUMBAI vs. CIT, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6487/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 133Section 40Section 40A(3)

…t could be entertained under the Rules, where it is genuine and the payee is identified. Various courts in the case of err vs Chaudhary & Co (1996) 217 ITR 431 (All); George & Sons vs. ACIT (2006) 286 ITR 389 (Ker); Tarn Tarn Pedda Guruva Reddy vs JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 44 (Kar) have held that Section 40 A (3) is not absolute in its terms. Accordingly, where there is a genuine finding that the seller has insisted on cash payment and the payment is genuine; amount cannot be disallowed. Isn CIT vs Pravin & Co (2005) 274 ITR 534 (Guj), it was held that the practicality of the payment should be judged from the view of t…

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

ITA 828/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 119Section 120Section 120(3)Section 124Section 124(3)Section 143(2)

…of the said cheque. Without verification of any of these assertions of the assessee, as per the ld. AR, addition was made. Reliance was placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy v. CIT (291 ITR 44) and of Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254). 15. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that assessee all along was saying that the money was coming from Shri. Shravan Nayak. As per the Ld. DR, Shri. Shravan Nayak was the brother of one of the partners of the assessee. There was no reason given by the assessee why the m…

ROHITASAVA CHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/611/2007HC Delhi20 Mar 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA

…ering into a restrictive covenant of not entering into a competitive business was a receipt by the assessee of a capital nature and thus not liable to tax. 22. On the other hand, in Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 44, the question before the Karnataka High Court related to an agreement whereby the assessee agreed not to compete with Tam Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy Constructions (P) Ltd. within the local limits of Turuvekere, Tumkur and Kunigal for a period of five years. In consideration of this ITA No.611/2007 Page 14 of 16 covenant, the assessee was…

Chaudhary & Co (1996) 217 ITR 431 (All); George & Sons. v. ACIT (291 ITR 44) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax