CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumer

304 ITR 152Reported decision#20424 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumer

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Satna, Satna vs. M/S. Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar, Satna

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

ITA 136/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133(6)Section 68

…of the view that only the net profit could be estimated. CIT(A) has also relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 and the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manmohan Sadani vs. CIT 304 ITR 152." (viii) In the case of Andaman timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 94 CCH 0187 the hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a 17 | P a g e ACIT vs S…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…to tax. i) CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj-HC) ii) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj-HC) iii) CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj-HC) iv) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumer 263 ITR 610 (MP-HC) v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 304 ITR 152 (MP-HC) vi) CIT vs. Leaders valves (P) Ltd 285 ITR 435 (P&H-HC) Merely non appearance of suppliers would not conclude the purchase as ingenuine i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom-HC) In view of the above, a humble prayer is made :-. a) To delete the addition u/s 69C of Rs 1,31,88,227/- or alternatively, b) To adop…

ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin Purshottam Bajaj, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ht to tax. i) CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj-HC) ii) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj-HC) iii) CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj-HC) iv) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumer 263 ITR 610 (MP-HC) v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 304 ITR 152 (MP-HC) vi) CIT vs. Leaders valves (P) Ltd 285 ITR 435 (P&H-HC) Merely non appearance of suppliers would not conclude the purchase as ingenuine i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom-HC) In view of the above, a humble prayer is made :-. a) To delete the addition u/s 69C of Rs 1,31,88,227/- or alternatively, b) To ad…

Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ht to tax. i) CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj-HC) ii) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj-HC) iii) CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj-HC) iv) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumer 263 ITR 610 (MP-HC) v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 304 ITR 152 (MP-HC) vi) CIT vs. Leaders valves (P) Ltd 285 ITR 435 (P&H-HC) Merely non appearance of suppliers would not conclude the purchase as ingenuine i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom-HC) In view of the above, a humble prayer is made :-. a) To delete the addition u/s 69C of Rs 1,31,88,227/- or alternatively, b) To ad…

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumer (304 ITR 152) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax