CIT v. Forech India Ltd.

329 ITR 336High Court#20517 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Forech India Ltd.

J C Home Tex, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 7, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…e instant case, Id.AO has failed to point out even a single discrepancy in books of accounts completed after the survey and audited by qualified chartered accountants and produced before him for examination. In this regard reliance is placed on the following: 329 ITR 336 CIT v. Forech India Ltd. (Delhi) Undisclosed stock- Books of account incomplete at time of survey- Finding of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal that stock related to import purchases verifiable from customs records- Accounts reconciled later- Finding of fact- Income-tax Act, 1961. 396 ITR 580 –Principal CIT Vs. Marg Ltd. (Bom) [DOD: 20.07.2017]…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…correct, however in the instant case, the AO has failed to point out even a single discrepancy in books of accounts recasted and audited by qualified chartered accountants. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • CIT v. Forech India Ltd. 329 ITR 336 (Delhi) • Principal CIT Vs. Marg Ltd. 396 ITR 580 (Bom) • Asstt. CIT vs. Intermedia Cable Communication (P) Ltd. 146 TTJ 476 (Pune) • Ajanta Construction (P) Ltd.V/s ACIT XXI TW 606 (ITAT Jaipur) • St. Teresa’s Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, (1970) 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 39. It was further submitted that the lump sum/ adhoc addition of Rs.50.00 lakhs wa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

DCIT 6(1), Mumbai vs. Aqdas Maritime Agency P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result these grounds of appeal is also dismissed

ITA 1559/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) Mumbai. Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) M/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.113/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) M/S Aqdas Maritime Agency Pvt. Asst.Cit, Circle-(6)(1) Ltd. 32/33, Eastern Chamber, Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Nandlal Jani Marg, Vs. Poona Street, Mumbai-400009 Pan:Aaeca8490K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Mrs. Prakash Jhunjhunwala & Sanjay Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena & Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Set Of Two Appeals By Both The Parties & Cross Objection By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-

For Appellant: Mrs. Prakash Jhunjhunwala &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena & Rajesh

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 69C

…ITO 3 SOT 843(Jab), (iii) Garima H Jain Vs ACIT 87 ITD 242 (Pune TM) (iv) ITO Vs Dr. KR Jayachandran 70 TTJ 324(Cochin), (v) Agarwal Trading Company Vs ITO 111TTJ 589 (Delhi), (vi) Raj Sons Jewellers Vs ITO 56 TTJ 1106 (Delhi), (vii) CIT Vs Forech India Ltd. 329 ITR 336(Delhi), (viii) Kedarnath Jute Mgf Co. Ltd Vs CIT 52 ITR 363(SC) 10. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer noted that the assessee has shown the Share application money of rs.2,64,61,175/-, however, during the survey…