CIT v. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai

232 ITR 900High Court1998#8502 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 144B Section 145(3)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

transfer india total income company document interest section 143(3)business

Judgments citing CIT v. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai

OLIRIA FOODS AND BEVERAGES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…d and repaid by cheques. Assessee producing Photostat copies of cheques and certificate from Bank before AAC . AAC refusing to admit additional evidence. AAC should have considered evidence produced by assessee regarding loan. (v) CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) There is no prohibition for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage, the only condition being that the Department should not be prejudiced and should be given reasonable opportunity to rebut this additional evidence. In this case, no such request was made by the representative of the Department whether they disputed this certificat…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GROUP M MEDIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are stand dismissed

ITA 3087/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhco No. 137/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2011-12) Group M Media (India) Vs. Dcit-12(2)(2) Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, 8Th Floor, Commerz Aayakar Bhavan, International Business M.K. Road, Park, Oberoi Garden Mumbai-400020 City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-12(2)(2) Vs. Group M Media (India) Room No. 145, 1 St Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Commerz M.K. Road, International Business Mumbai-400020 Park, Oberoi Garden City, Off Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh Rakh Date Of Hearing 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10 .2023

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh Rakh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…2. Mr. Ghanshyan N Jaisingh 3. Mr. Nirmiti Realities Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncement to admit the additional evidence.  Prabhavati S. Shah (231 ITR 1) (Bom HC).  CIT Vs. Ganibhai Wahabbhai (1998) 232 ITR 900(MP)  Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM)  Abhay Kumar Shroff 63 ITD 144 (Pat) (TM)  K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 (SC) 1526  Rajmoti Industries (1995) 52 ITD 286 11. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 2760, 3087/Mum/2019 & CO 137/Mum/2021 M/s Group Media M (Indi…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…ed and repaid by cheques. Assessee producing Photostat copies of cheques and certificate from Bank before AAC. AAC refusing to admit additional evidence. AAC should have considered evidence produced by assessee regarding loan. (v) CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) There is no prohibition for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage, the only condition being that the Department should not be prejudiced and should be given reasonable opportunity to rebut this additional evidence. In this case, no such request was made by the representative of the Department whether they disputed this certificat…

ANCHOR ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. JT. CIT - CCC- 7(2)`, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Yogesh Kamat

Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…01.2014 & 26.04.2014; and (iii) copy of trademark agreement dated 11.09.2014. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the following case law for admitting additional evidences: “i. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom). ii. CIT Vs. Ganibhai Wahabbhai (1998) 232 ITR 900 (MP) iii. Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM) iv. Abhay Kumar Shroff 63 ITD 144 (Pat (TM) v. K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 (SC) 1526 vi. Rajmoti Industries (1995) 52 ITD 286.” We have perused the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and also perused the finding of the DRP, it is observed that DRP had not directed the…

PAWAN KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 43(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7809/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…ance is placed on the following:- a) ITA/140/DEL/2018 AY 2009-10 Dharampal Tyagi Vs. ITO, Meerut b) Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (Hon'ble P&H High Court) c) Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM) Ganibhai Wahabbhai 232 ITR 900 MP d) Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 669(Karnataka HC) 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of principle of natural justice appellant prays that assessment order passed u/s 144 r. w. s. 147 may be set aside and restored to the file of Ld. AO to make the de novo assessment for ascertaining t…

BANSAL RICE TRADERS,SANGRUR vs. ITO-WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…6. Rectified form 26AS Reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Tek Ram (Dead) through LRs Vs. CIT 357 ITR 133 (SC) • CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H) • UOP LLC Vs. ADIT, ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench 108 ITD 186 • CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) • Electra (Jaipur)(P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 26 ITD 236 (Del) • CIT vs. Parimal Kanti Chanda 291 ITR 77 (Gauhati) • Hingora Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2109/Ahd/2008 (Ahd Trib)) • DCIT Vs. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal in ITA No. 374/Agra/2010 (Agra Trib) • DCIT vS. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 5.2 The Ld. CIT asked…

SHRI NAROTAM SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 307/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…and in this case, the department was not in appeal, but still the department evidence was admitted since it has bearing in the judgment of the above said case. (v) Decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai reported in 232 ITR 900. (vi) Decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of Electra (Jaipur)(P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner reported in 26 ITR 236 in which it was held as under: “ Appeal CIT(A)- Additional evidence – Admissibility – if the evidence is genuine, reliable and proves the assessee’s case, assessee should not be denied the opportunity to adduce…

SHRI TARLOCHAN SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MANSA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

GLOBAL ONE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5165/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Section 44ASection 92E

…judiced and that the Assessing Officer should be given a reasonable opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. For this, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai reported in [1998] 232 ITR 900 (MP). Thus, it is our considered opinion that Global One India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT since the audited financial statements and audited report could not be filed during the course of assessment proceedings due to factors entirely beyond the control of the assessee, in the interest of substantial justice, the Assessing Officer should de-novo make t…

VAARAD VENTURES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7324/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaarad Ventures Ltd., Dy. Cit Circle-8(3)(2), 6A, Lalwani Industrial Aayakarbhavan, M.K Road, Vs. Estate, 14 G.D. Ambekar Mumbai-400020. Road, Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. Pan No. Aabca2059D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaarad Ventures Ltd., Dy. CIT Circle-8(3)(2), 6A, Lalwani Industrial AayakarBhavan, M.K Road, Vs. Estate, 14 G.D. Ambekar Mumbai-400020. Road, Wadala, Mumbai- 400031. PAN No. AABCA2059D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Jayesh Dadia, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR Date of Hearing : 19/09/2019 Date of pronouncement : 25/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year…

SHREENATH HERITAGE LIQUOR PVT. LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 115BSection 68

…and repaid by cheques. Assessee producing Photostat copies of cheques and certificate from Bank before AAC . AAC refusing to admit additional evidence. AAC should have considered evidence produced by assessee regarding loan. (v) CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) - There is no prohibition for taking additional evidence at the appellate stage, the 3 Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT,Circle,Jhunjhunu only condition being that the Department should not be prejudiced and should be given reasonable opportunity to rebut this additional evidence. In this case, no such request was made by the repre…

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ANAND NIRMAN PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…is view is Anand Nirman Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 supported by the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd (293 ITR 53) and that of the .M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai (232 ITR 900).” After going through the aforesaid observations of the Ld. CIT(A) we find that the Ld. CIT(A) had forwarded the additional evidence before the AO and sought his remand report and the AO had conducted enquiries before forwarding the remand report. Therefore, we do not find any violation of Rule 46A of the Rules and, therefore, this ground of ap…

D.C.I.T CC - VII,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ANAND NIRMAN PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68