Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT

84 ITR 222High Court1972#8183 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 Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rmation sought to be used against the assessee, should be put to him and he should have fare opportunity. It is upto the assessee to avail of it, consistent with the principal of natural justice, to rebut the same. (a) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) (v) Munna Lal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All) The princi…

SMT JOYTI GARG,MANDSOUR vs. ACIT RATLAM, RATLAM

In the result, this appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Jyoti Garg Acit, Ratlam Mandsaur बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Agzpg9989M Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…les of natural justice. In support of this conclusion he relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harikishan Jethamal Patel (1987) 168 ITR 472 (Guj), CIT vs. M. K. Bros. (supra), Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar Jain vs. Asstt. CIT (1994) 49 TTJ (All) (TM) 558 : (1994) 208 ITR 22 (AT) (All). The learned counsel further submitted that reliance by the Departmental Representative on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Rajdeep Sales Agency (supra) was of no assistance to the Revenue as the…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI vs. M/S K.R. PULP & PAPERS LTD,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…and, therefore, any conclusion formed on the basis of such statement shall be highly perverse and untenable. For the above proposition, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the following decisions : 1. Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills vs., CIT 84 ITR 222 (P & H) 2. CIT vs., Supreme Polypropolene (P.) Ltd., 35 taxmann.com 215 (Del.) 3. Pr. CIT vs., Rakam Money Matters (P) Ltd., ITA.No.778/Del./2015 Dated 13.10.2015. 4. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd., vs., ACIT 398 ITR 198 (Del.0 5. CIT vs., Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) 25 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi.…

DY CIT CIRCLE- 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASPEE AGRO EQUIPMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 589/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 589/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit Circle-12(1)(1) M/S Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128C, 1St Floor बिाम/ Aspee House, B. J. Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8980-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld. Sr. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri B. P. Purohit -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 23/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 01/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 10/10/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 13/03/2014. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: - I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances & Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchases Of Rs.1,52,19,619/- Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Failed To Establish The Genuineness Of The Purchases.

For Appellant: Shri Brajendra Kumar -Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Purohit -Ld. AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री छल्ला नागेन्द्र प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 589/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT Circle-12(1)(1) M/s Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 128C, 1st floor बिाम/ Aspee House, B. J. Patel Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Churchgate Malad(W), Mumbai-400 064 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरस…

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…corroborated. Statement of third person, which is not corroborated by any evidence, has no evidentiary value and in support of this contention on following decisions:- i. ACT vs Prabhat Oil Mills 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd); ii. Chironjilal Steel Rolling Mills vs CIT 84 ITR 222 (P&H). iii. CBI vs V.C. Shukla 1998 SCC 410; iv. Ashwini Kumar 39 ITR 183 (Del.); v. Satnam Singh Chhabra 74 TTJ 976 (Luck.); vi. Ashadevi 101 TTJ 332 (Ahd.); vii. ACIT vs Kamla Prasad Singh 3 ITR (Trib.) 533 (Pat.); viii. Sheth Akshya Pushpavandan 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd.); ix. Balram Jakhar 98 TTJ 924 (Asr.); x. Common Cause (SC), following V.C. Shukla…

AG-8 VENTURES LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

DCIT, CC-1, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI JUGAL KISHORE GARG(DEREWALA), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)

…n sought to be used against the assessee, should be put to him and he should have fare opportunity. It is upto the assessee to avail of it, constant with the principal of natural justice, to rebut the same. (a) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 (P&H) (b) Namasivayam Chettiar (S.N.) Vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 579 (SC) (c) Abdul Razak Vs. CIT (1935) 3 ITR 361 (Pat) (d) Balasubramanian (P.N.) Vs. ITO (1978) 112 ITR 512 (AP) (e) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT (1966) 62 ITR 506 (Cal) (f) Cashmir Vastralaya Vs. CIT (1978) 112 ITR 630 (Pat) 5. Addi tion canno t be made on the basi s of state ment of a th…

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no proof that the amounts in question represented income from undisclosed sources belonging to the assessee”. d) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills v. CIT [1972[ 84 ITR 222 (P&H) - Held - “The copy of entries from the accounts of another firm supplied to the Income Tax Officer by the Sales tax department 17 [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] was not legal and admissible evidence on which the Income tax Officer could act for imposing extra burden of income tax on the assessee when the original accounts were…

SAMEER MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. ITO-3(3) , INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148

…oks of third person, or statement of third person, it was only an EXCEL SHEET, where they made certain disclosure. Such disclosure was "IN THE SPIRIT OF SETILEMENT", as stated by Id Assessing Officer himself. In Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 {P&H}, considering section 27 of the Evidence Act, it was held that statement of co-accused cannot be read in evidence against another co-accused unless and until it is corroborated with independent material. Further reliance is placed on M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Raj.), where it was held that Statement recorded u/s. 132{4} or 131 of the third pa…

ITO 2(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. GRANDIOSE JEWELLERY P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…son to adopt 10% N.P. 3.13 As mentioned earlier Assessing Officer has not indicated any material on which his assessment is based, hence, M/s Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. such addition cannot be sustained vide: Chiranjilal Steel Rolling Mills vs. cit (1972) 84 ITR 222( Punj). The Assessing Officer is not entitled to make a guess without evidence, vide cit vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1993) 1 ITR 94 (PC). That an authority making a best judgement assessment must make an honest and fair estimate of the income of the assessee and though arbitrariness cannot be avoided in such estimate, the sam…

DCIT 5(1), INDORE vs. SHRI MAHESH BANASAL, INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…, c) Addl. CIT Vs. Miss. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). d) Dy. CIT Vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj). e) Heirs & L.Rs of Late Laxman Bhai S. Patel V s.CIT (2008) 327 ITR 290 (Guj). f) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 (P&H): g) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del). h) Kamta Prasad Dwivedi Vs. ACIT (2018) 33 ITJ 565 (Inodre-Trib.) 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. A.O submitting that the information was found during the course of searc…

ANALJIT SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(2), DELHI

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P.Kant

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 50D

…to support the finding of the Tribunal. Considering the cases also fromanother point of view the conclusions arrived by the Tribunal are based upon evidence which is inadmissible in these proceedings. In the case of Chiranji Lai Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT: 84 ITR 222, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that copy of entries supplied by the sales tax department to the Income- tax Officer were not legal and admissible evidence on which the Income-tax Officer could act for imposing extra burden of income-tax on the assessee. Relevant observations of the Court are as under: 23 | P a g e I.T.A .No.-4737/De…

M/S. STRIDE INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5349/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5349/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 M/S Stride Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 100-K, Basement Milap Ward-9(2), Bhawan, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs4888A Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Piyush Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 68

…Court has held that the Assessing Authority is duly bound to disclose all the evidences 11 Stride Infrastructure (P) Ltd. collected by him to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of rebutting it. Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs CIT Punjab – (1970) 84 ITR 222 (P&H).” 7. However, the AO did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs.10,03,46,128/- by observing as under: “I have carefully gone through the submission of the assessee and also to the documents collected in this regard. The contention of the assessee was that burden of the assessee in respect of the advance…

DCIT 9(1), MUMBAI vs. ASPEE AGRO EQUIPMENT P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4065/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.P. PurohitFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,” ए” खंडपीठ मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-A,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर"सह , "याियक सद"य एवं एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं एवं Before S/Sh. Joginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA/4065/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year :2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. CIT-9(1) M/s. Aspee Agro Equipment Pvt. Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan Ltd. M.K. Road Vs Aspee House, B.J. Patel Road Mumbai-400 020. Malad (W) Mumbai-400 064. PAN:AAACA 8980 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/A…