CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel

164 ITR 102High Court1987#2936 most cited

What is CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel authority for?

The assessee bears the onus to establish any claim for deduction of expenditure when computing taxable income, especially when parties from whom purchases were allegedly made deny such transactions before sales tax authorities.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel · deduction for expenditure · taxable income · onus on assessee · genuineness of purchases · denial of sales · sales tax authorities

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

kelvinatormere change of opinionspecified authoritysection 292bsection 148a(b)section 292addition under section 68change of opinionsection 149section 148asection 29tangible material

Judgments citing CIT v. Chandra Vilas Hotel

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nMs. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

…which were not amenable to independent verification. Relying\nupon judicial precedents including the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad\nHigh Court in Sabalgarh Industries Ltd. v. CIT (46 ITR 978), the Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court in CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel (164 ITR 102), and the\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba\nDyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere\nproduction of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof\nunder section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of\nexpenditure was in doubt. It was held that the…

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

…s, which were not amenable to independent verification. Relying upon judicial precedents including the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sabalgarh Industries Ltd. v. CIT (46 ITR 978), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Chandravilas Hotel (164 ITR 102), and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Amrit Lal & Co. (108 ITR 719) and Ciba Dyes Ltd. v. CIT (25 ITR 102), the Assessing Officer concluded that the mere production of vouchers was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under section 37(1) of the Act, particularly when the genuineness of expenditure was in doubt. It was held that the poss…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…9 The onus lies on the assessee to establish any claim for\ndeduction for expenditure which is claimed as deduction in\ncomputing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. Chandra\nVilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton\n& Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from the above mentioned parties,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…9 The onus lies on the assessee to establish any claim for\ndeduction for expenditure which is claimed as deduction in\ncomputing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment\nof Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. Chandra\nVilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton\n& Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co-\noperative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT\n(1993) 109 ITR 17 (Guj).\n4.10 Therefore the onus in the present case squarely lies on\nthe assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases, said to\nhave been made from the above mentioned parties,…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…nt computing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment computing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. Chandra Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co- operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT operative Cotton Sal…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…nt computing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment computing its taxable income. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court reported in CIT vs. Chandra Chandra Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton Vilas Hotel (1987) 164 ITR 102 (Guj), CIT vs. Navasari Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Silk Mills Ltd. (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co (1982) 135 ITR 546 (Guj) and Karjan Co- operative Cotton Sales Ginning & Pressing Society vs. CIT operative Cotton Sal…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 212/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 211/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SAROSH YAZDANI,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack03 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiait(Ss)A No A No.53/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2004-05 It(Ss)A No A No.54/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2005-06 It(Ss)A No A No.55/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2007-08 It(Ss)A No A No.67/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2006-07 It(Ss)A No A No.68/Ctk/2013: Assessment Year Assessment Years :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144

…alty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act. If the income had to be assessed under section 145 of the Act, then the presumption would be that the income was not properly returned, as held by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel [2007] 291 ITR 202 (Guj.). In this decision the Hon'ble High Court found that the assessee was not maintaining its account for six years and every year assessments were framed with the help and assistance of section 145(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court observed that at least some order should have worked as an eye-opener for the ass…

SHIVAJI JAGANNATH BHOSALE,BARAMATI vs. ITO WARD-5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1873/PUN/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1873/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale, The Income Tax Officer, Shrinath Transport Company, Vs Ward-5(4), Pune. Near Dynamix Dairy, Baramati-Bhigwan Ropad, Baramati, Pune – 413133 Pan: Abgpb 8933 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandhbhor – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 20.09.2019For The A.Y. 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 25,00,000/- In Respect Of Transportation Charges. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Cit(A) Has Failed To Consider The Fact That Transport Charges Paid By The Appellant Have Not Been Doubted In Assessments Of Any Of The Subsequent Years & Therefore Following The Principle Of Consistency No Addition On Adhoc Basis Can Be Made On The Same Ground In A. Y. 2003-04. Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A)

Section 40

…him to prove the claim for deduction of expenditure as self made cash vouchers are not adequate proof in view of the low GP shown by the assessee as brought out above. Reliance to this effect is placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs Chandravilas Hotel 164 ITR 102(Guj). Further the assessee in not able to give circumstantial evidence to establish genuineness of the claim which is otherwise sought to be 3 Mr.Shivaji Jagannath Bhosale (A) proved by direct evidence or secondary evidence as pronounced in the decision CIT Vs Southern Sea Foods Ltd. 215 ITR 176. Further, the important point to note here is tha…

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

…vs. CIT (All) 232 ITR 588 CIT vs. Md. WarasatHussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405 A.M. Shah & Co. vs. CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415 CIT vs. Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157 CIT vs. Svvarup Cold Storate& General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435. CIT vs. Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202 If the assessment order became final, it was binding on both parties and neither party could seek to reopen it in a penalty proceedings Bharat Rice Mill Vs. CIT (All) 278 ITR 599 S.S. RatanchandBholanathVs. CIT (MP) 210 ITR 682 CIT Vs. Ram NiwasAgarwal (All) 125 ITR 432 Mere offering explanation, is not sufficient – Explanation to be substanti…

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 9, NEW DELHI vs. VIMAL MOULDERS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3122/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhva, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Munesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 68

…. Ltd, V/s, CIT [1958] 33 ITR 294 (Pat)Dey's Medical Stores 9 ITA no.2113/Ahd/2010 Mft. Pvt. Ltd, V/s. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 630 (Cal) Liberty Cinema V/s. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 153 (Cal) Hotz Trust V/s. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 149 (Punj),CIT V/s, Chandravilas Hotel [1987] 164 ITR 102 (Guj) and State of Madras V/s. GJ, Coelho [1964] 53 ITR, 186 (SC). 7.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factory & Oil Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 125 ITR 293 (SC) has held that where an assessee claims a deduction the onus is on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. 7.8 Whether the appellant h…

BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), CHENNAI vs. SMT SASIKALA RAGHUPATHY L/H OF LATE B G RAGHUPATHY, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…prove the claim made by the assessee. It is his duty to prove payment especially when the ITO doubts the genuineness thereof. 21 I.T.A. Nos.23 to 25, 116/CHNY/2018 I.T.A. Nos.1510 to 1512/Chny/2018 & CO Nos.97 to 99/Chny/2018 CIT Vs. Chandravilas Hotel (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Ind…

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3