CIT v. A and A Bakery P. Ltd.

302 ITR 51High Court2008#15644 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. A and A Bakery P. Ltd.

RAVINDRA K RESHAMWALA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2925/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChhajedFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 35Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.2925/Mum./2023 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Ravindra K. Reshamwala 7/A, Pil Court, 111, Maharishi Karve Road ……………. Appellant Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 PAN – AAAFR2227C v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward-17(1), Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair Date of Hearing – 20/12/2023 Date of Order – 29/12/2023 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the im…

RAVINDRA K. RESHAWALA,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX 17(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2648/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleravindra K. Reshamwala V. Dcit- Circle 17(1) 7/A Pil Court, 111 M.K. Road Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051 Churchgate, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaafr2227C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Piyush Chhajed & Shri Sumit Mantri Department Represented By : Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 35ASection 35A(1)

…nce and did not brought on record any fact to establish that donation given by the assessee was subsequently returned back in cash except mere allegations. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s A and A Bakery P. Ltd. (2008 302 ITR 51) to support the conclusions. Finally, the disallowance was deleted. We find that fact to be pari-materia the same in this year. The assessee has duly discharged the onus casted upon him and it was incumbent upon Ld. AO to refute the same. However, no such inquiry has been conducted and the disallowance has been made on mere allegations. Therefore,…

MET PRO CHEMICALS ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE , DELHI

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Met Pro Chemicals V. Cit(A) Room No. 208, Alankar Building National Faceless Appeal Centre Samuel Street, Masjid Bunder Delhi Mumbai - 400003 Pan: Aabfm0950E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Manoj Pandit Shri. Ashish Kumar Deharia Department Represented By :

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 35(1)(ii)

…nce and did not brought on record any fact to establish that donation given by the assessee was subsequently returned back in cash except mere allegations. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s A and A Bakery P. Ltd. (2008 302 ITR 51) to support the conclusions. Finally, the disallowance was deleted. We find that fact to be pari-materia the same in this year. The assessee has duly discharged the onus casted upon him and it was incumbent upon Ld. AO to refute the same. However, no such inquiry has been conducted and the disallowance has been made on mere allegations. Therefore,…

SHRI. MRUNAL H SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4878/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.4878/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Mrunal H. Shah Acit-17(2) बिाम/ D-1402, Rna Continental Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road No. 14, Subhash Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Awaps-5133-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi- Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Joshi-Ld. Sr.Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 24/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-28/Itba- 10386/Acit-17(2)/2017-18 Dated 10/06/2019 On Following Grounds: - 1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.15,00,000/- Being Claim Under S.80Gga In Respect Of Donation Made To Navjivan Charitable Trust Agreeing With The Ao That The Donation Was Bogus.

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Sanghvi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi-Ld. Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 80G

…nce and did not brought on record any fact to establish that donation given by the assessee was subsequently returned back in cash except mere allegations. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s A and A Bakery P. Ltd. (2008 302 ITR 51) to support the conclusions. Finally, the disallowance was deleted. We find that fact to be pari-materia the same in this year. The assessee has duly discharged the onus casted upon him and it was incumbent upon Ld. AO to refute the same. However, no such inquiry has been conducted and the disallowance has been made on mere allegations. Therefore,…

DEVAJYOTI N. BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5051/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sameer G. Dalal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak-Ld. DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 35A

…1 Assessment Year :2013-14 Devajyoti N. Bhattacharya आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “डी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5051/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Devajyoti N. Bhattacharya ACIT-17(1) C/o. Aditya Birla Management Mumbai. बनाम/ Corporation Pvt.Ltd. Birla Aurora, Level 17 Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai- 400 030. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADPB-0965-A (अपीलाथ"/Ap…

DEVAJYOTI N. BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- 17 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 5874/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Devajyoti N. Asst. Commissioner Of Bhattacharya Vs. Income Tax, Circle-17(1), C/O. Aditya Birla Mumbai. Management Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Birla Aurora Level 17, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400030. Pan No. Aadpb0965A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Dalal, ARFor Respondent: Mrs.Jyothi Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 35A

…cted on some of the donors have conclusively proved that the Trust indeed returned the donation in cash’. The AO has not found any fault in the documents filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. In CIT v. A And A Bakery P. Ltd.(2008) 302 ITR 51(Del), it is held that “it is for the taxpayer tp prove the expenditure claimed by him, But the burden will shift, where the assessee had produced prima facie evidence as payment by cheque, so that no further proof may be expected. Disallowance prompted by mere suspicion in such cases was held unjustified.” In view of the above, we delete the disal…

CIT v. A and A Bakery P. Ltd. (302 ITR 51) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax