CIT v. Anand Food Products

39 Taxmann.com 187High Court#20831 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 142(1)section 143(3)document interest

Judgments citing CIT v. Anand Food Products

MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-16(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…w which the CIT did not agree, it could not be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO was un-sustainable in law. 19. Similarly, the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anand Food Products (39 Taxmann.com 187) (A.P -H.C) has held that where the Assessing Officer had made inquiries on issues under consideration and assessee had given detailed explanation by furnishing data, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, simply because he did not make detailed 15 ITA 122/Hyd/2022 discussion. Various other…

SHASHIKALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the CIT did not agree, it could not be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO was un- sustainable in law. 14. Similarly, the Hon'ble A.P High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anand Food Products (39 Taxmann.com 187) (A.P -H.C) has held that where the Assessing Officer had made inquiries on issues under consideration and assessee had given detailed explanation by furnishing data, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, simply because he did not make detailed discussion. Various other decisions relied on…

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

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

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Arena Enterprise v. PCIT –Mumbai-17 CTS No. 20, Arena Space, Village MAJAS Room No. 120, 1st Floor JVLR, Behind MAJAS Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AANFA3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented by : Shri Jagadish Jangid Date of Hearing : 06.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2022 O R D…

NARASIMHA REDDY PEECHU, NIZAMABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3, NIZAMABAD, NIZAMABAD

ITA 932/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)(i)Section 263Section 45(1)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 932/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Narasimha Reddy Peechu, The Income Tax Officer, NIZAMABAD Vs Ward-3, [PAN: AHMPP3543Q] NIZAMABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, AR For Revenue : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18-07-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20-07-2018 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : This is an appeal by assessee against the order of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax…