Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT

131 TTJ 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2151 most cited

What is Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT authority for?

Excess stock found during a survey, if it pertains to the assessee's regular business and is not separately identifiable, should be taxed as business income rather than deemed income under sections 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C. Income already brought to tax as an undeclared business receipt cannot be further taxed as deemed income.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v DCIT · survey section 133A · excess stock found during survey · business income vs deemed income · unexplained investments section 69B · undisclosed business receipt · section 69 · section 69A · section 69C · taxation of undisclosed income · 115BBE applicability · classification of income

Also reported as

9 Taxmann.com 300

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 69Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 69BSection 69ASection 69CSection 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 40(b)section 69dset off of lossessection 71abatement of assessmentsection 145(1)section 209section 69bsubstance over formsection 153a proceedingspreponderance of probabilitysurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT

GOPAL JADWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 1047/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 69

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Gopal Jadwani, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of No.2, Flat No.102, 1st Floor, Income Tax, Sair Elite, Edward Road, Central Circle -1(4), Queens Road, Bangalore North, Bangalore. Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, S.O, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN – ACGPJ 8710 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED,…

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv. (V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR a
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 95/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 Pranati Buildcon cuke The ACIT/DCIT, Vs. Parshavnath Complex, Parshvnath Central Circle, Enclave Extn. Kunhadi, Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFP0844Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Hanedra Gargieya, Adv.…

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 99/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri S.G. GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69B

…hen taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. Shri Vishwakarma Jewellers ITA no.99/Nag./2025 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. v. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his argu-ments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Co…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S MRK GOLD LLP, BANGALORE

ITA 1026/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 69B

…IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 ACIT, Vs. M/s. MRK Gold LLP, Central Circle – 2(4), No. 25, 11 Floor, Byatappa Lane, Bengaluru. CT Street Cross, Bengaluru - 560002 PAN : ABDFM 0158 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Kumar J Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 ORDER Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This appeal is filed by the Revenue again…

PAWAN AGARWAL,SHILLONG vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…r of the Ld. CIT(A) in which reliance has been placed on the decisions of i) Principal CIT v. Bajargan Traders (I.T. Appeal No. 258/2017 dated 12.09.2017) (Rajasthan High Court) [2017] 86 taxmann.com 295 (Raj), ii) Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.), iii) Bajaj Sons Ltd. V. DCIT [2021] 190 ITD 128 (Chandigarh), iv)Lovish Singhal v. ITO [ITA Nos. 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 dated 25- 5- 2018], v) Dy. CIT v. Ram Narayan Birla [IT Appeal No. 482/JPR/2015 for AY 2011-12 dated 30-9-2019]. I.T.A. No.: 151/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pawan Agarwal. 5.2. The Ld. AR submitted that the details of…

MUKESH KUMAR AHUJA,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 109/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 133ASection 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…erefore, there was no question of treating it as deemed income from undisclosed sources u/s 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Act and the same was held to be in the nature of business income of the assessee. Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT [2011] 9 taxmann.com 300/141 TTJ 1 (UO)/45 SOT 349 (Ahd.) In this case there was a survey u/s 133A at the premises of the assessee. Excess stock of gold and silver ornaments were found. The excess stock was included in the closing stock of the inventory while filing the return of income subsequently but the AO observed that the disclosure was not consistent with the provisions of se…

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), LUDHIANA vs. M/S SHEETAL INDUSTRIES , KHANNA

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 420/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Advocate and Shri Virsain AggarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…purview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of ChokshiHiralalMaganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his arguments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High…

M/S AMARJIT & SONS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 203/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Have Not Been Appreciated.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

…purview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his arguments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High…

RAV SHARAN SINGH,PATIALA vs. ACIT, C.C., PATIALA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…purview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his arguments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High…

KANEIYALAL RAMJIBHAI & SONS,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 293/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.293/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kaneiyalal Ramjibhai & Sons, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Sharaf Bazar, Mahuva Mahuva, Income Tax, Bhavnagar-364290 Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad [PAN No.AAFFK1392L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Respondent by: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR 25.09.2024 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER…

JCIT (OSD) CIRCLE- 16(2), NEW DELHI vs. MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3548/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…the same cannot be ITA No. 3548/Del/2018 Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd. treated as income. The ld. AR relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Goyal (331 ITR 16), the Special bench of ITAT in ACIT Vs. Mahindra Resort (131 TTJ 1). Further, the ld. AR submitted that the Revenue itself in the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 has accepted the accounting of membership fee from the assessee. Therefore, the settled position accepted by the Revenue itself cannot be disturbed. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has neither forfeited any of the advance re…

MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 326/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…the same cannot be ITA No. 3548/Del/2018 Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd. treated as income. The ld. AR relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Goyal (331 ITR 16), the Special bench of ITAT in ACIT Vs. Mahindra Resort (131 TTJ 1). Further, the ld. AR submitted that the Revenue itself in the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 has accepted the accounting of membership fee from the assessee. Therefore, the settled position accepted by the Revenue itself cannot be disturbed. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has neither forfeited any of the advance re…

MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6228/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…the same cannot be ITA No. 3548/Del/2018 Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd. treated as income. The ld. AR relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Goyal (331 ITR 16), the Special bench of ITAT in ACIT Vs. Mahindra Resort (131 TTJ 1). Further, the ld. AR submitted that the Revenue itself in the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 has accepted the accounting of membership fee from the assessee. Therefore, the settled position accepted by the Revenue itself cannot be disturbed. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has neither forfeited any of the advance re…

MAYAR HEALTH RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5109/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 145(3)Section 209Section 35D(2)(c)

…the same cannot be ITA No. 3548/Del/2018 Mayar Health Resorts Pvt. Ltd. treated as income. The ld. AR relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dinesh Goyal (331 ITR 16), the Special bench of ITAT in ACIT Vs. Mahindra Resort (131 TTJ 1). Further, the ld. AR submitted that the Revenue itself in the subsequent year i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 and A.Y. 2013-14 has accepted the accounting of membership fee from the assessee. Therefore, the settled position accepted by the Revenue itself cannot be disturbed. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee has neither forfeited any of the advance re…

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…urview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 89 of 104 DR has also quoted the same in his arguments befor…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…urview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 89 of 104 DR has also quoted the same in his arguments befor…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…urview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 89 of 104 DR has also quoted the same in his arguments befor…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…urview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 89 of 104 DR has also quoted the same in his arguments befor…

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…urview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 89 of 104 DR has also quoted the same in his arguments befor…

RAJIV KUMAR GOYAL,DHURI vs. DCIT, CC-2, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Amended From Time To Time. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 03/02/2023 In Appeal No. 10850/2018-19/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2021-22 For A.Y. 2019-20 Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Was Dismissed. Therefore The Present Second Appeal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Before Us Against The Aforesaid Order Dt. 03/02/2023 Which Is Hereiafter Referred To As The Impugned Order. Factual Matrix 3. The Assessee Had For The Relevant Year I.E; A.Y. 2019-20 Was Also Engaged In The Same Business I.E; Manufacturing Of Pvc Pipes & Had Filed

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishaba Marwaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 250(6)Section 253

…purview of tax as undeclared business receipt, then taxing it further as deemed income u/s 69 would be completely out of place. 10.21 Similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal Vs. DCIT reported in 131 TTJ 1 (Ahd.) 10.22 It is also seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No. 106 of 2011 (O&M) and the Ld. CIT DR has also quoted the same in his arguments before us. However, after going through the aforesaid judgement of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High…

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal v. DCIT (131 TTJ 1) — Cited in 54 Judgments | BharatTax