CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja

302 ITR 63High Court2008#686 most cited

What is CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja authority for?

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

147

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja · Section 145(3) · unaccounted receipts · on-money · suppressed sales · rejection of books of account · profit estimation · profit element · undisclosed business income · best judgment assessment · loose papers · Section 132

Also reported as

171 Taxmann 406215 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132Section 145(3)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsection 256(1)project completion methodsection 145(2)section 256on-moneysection 199loose papersrejection of books of accountspecified authorityicdsreasoned order

Judgments citing CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…levant assessment year answers by itself in the negative. The High Court rejected the appeal holding that no question of law which requires to be referred arises. 11. In the case of commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), once again a somewhat similar issue came up before this Court. In the said case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of tyres. Search proceedings were carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee. On the basis of loose sheets which were seized during such search operation, the Assessing Officer held…

M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village Post-Patan, Tehsil-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer, Kishangarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 861/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 115BSection 263Section 3Section 69A

…lokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. PCIT, Jaipur negative. The High Court rejected the appeal holding that no question of law which requires to be referred arises. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), once again a somewhat similar issue came up before this Court. In the said case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of tyres. Search proceedings were carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee. On the basis of loose sheets which were seized during such search operation, the Assessing Officer held…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…n made only to the extent of profit on the sales made against the said purchases – the entire purchases cannot be disallowed (GP ratio is around 3% in the present case) [refer CIT vs. President Industries: 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT v. Gurubachansingh J. Juneja: 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), PCIT vs. Ashokkumar C. Dharewa, HUF: TA No. 351 of 2017 (Guj.)]. 27. Lastly, it was submitted that similar purchases on account of milk tanki purchases have been accepted by the assessing officer in assessment years 2015-16 and AY 2016- 17 in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act and no addition has been made on account…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…n made only to the extent of profit on the sales made against the said purchases – the entire purchases cannot be disallowed (GP ratio is around 3% in the present case) [refer CIT vs. President Industries: 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT v. Gurubachansingh J. Juneja: 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), PCIT vs. Ashokkumar C. Dharewa, HUF: TA No. 351 of 2017 (Guj.)]. 27. Lastly, it was submitted that similar purchases on account of milk tanki purchases have been accepted by the assessing officer in assessment years 2015-16 and AY 2016- 17 in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act and no addition has been made on account…

The ITO, Sendhwa vs. Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…unal to hold that the assessee had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 50,000 outside the account books.-Dhakeswari Cotton Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (sq relied on." Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63 has held that [ refer from premable] :- "In absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales) the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference." 4.5.2] Thus, as such…

Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO, Khargon

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…unal to hold that the assessee had made an unexplained investment of Rs. 50,000 outside the account books.-Dhakeswari Cotton Ltd. vs. CIT(1954) 26 ITR 775 (sq relied on." Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63 has held that [ refer from premable] :- "In absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales) the finding of the Tribunal that only the GP on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for any interference." 4.5.2] Thus, as such…

Shri Raj Kishorbhai Yadav, Jamnagar vs. The ITO-Ward, 3(2), Jamnagar

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

ITA 230/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Madhumita Roy)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Suhas Mistry, Sr. DR

…he addition was justified on account of suppression of sale consideration but only to the extent of profit. 13. We further draw support and guidance from the order of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J Juneja reported in 302 ITR 63. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced as under: 6. Hence, in absence of any material on record to show that there was any unexplained investment made by the assessee which was reflected by the alleged unaccounted sales the finding of the Tribunal that only the gross profit on the said amount can be brought to tax does not call for an…

M/S. Sanvira Holdings, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2351/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2351/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/S Sanvira Holdings, D.C.I.T., 1108, First Floor, Vs. Gandhinagar Circle, Plot No.231, Gandhinagar. Haveli Arcade, Sector-11, Gandhinagar-382011. Pan: Abufs9270M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.D.R with Shri L.P. jain, Sr.D.R
Section 133ASection 234ASection 271

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 2351/AHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/s Sanvira Holdings, D.C.I.T., 1108, First Floor, Vs. Gandhinagar Circle, Plot No.231, Gandhinagar. Haveli Arcade, Sector-11, Gandhinagar-382011. PAN: ABUFS9270M आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2352/AHD/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 M/s Sanvira Infrastructure, D.C.I.T., 171, Shopping Centre, Vs. Gandhinagar Circle, Sector-19, Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar-382019. PAN: ABIFS9669J…

Crp Associates, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Cirle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1901/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1901/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Crp Associates Acit, Gandhinagar Cir. 117, First Floor Vs Gandhinagar. Suman City, Sector 11 Gandhinagar 382 010. Pan : Aaffc 9454 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…. For buttressing this proposition, he made reference to the following decisions: i) DCIT vs. Panna Corporation - Tax Appeal No.323 of 2000 (Guj) (Annexure "D"); ii) CIT vs. President Industries - 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); iii) CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja - 302 ITR 63 (Guj); iv) CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill - 326 ITR 410 (Guj); v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT - (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar - (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) vi) 5. In his next fold of contentions, he submitted that this amount would become part of the business income, and accordingly, partners are entitled for remuneration as well as…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. M/S. Anupam Organiser, Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2036/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2036/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of V Anupam Organiser, Income Tax, S. F.P.No.12/13, Tp No.37, Central Circle-4, Surat. Nr. Bhumi Residency, Althan, Surat. [Pan: Aarfa 6954 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay –Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari - Cit-Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…that income tax is to be charged only on net income/net profit even in the case of undisclosed income or receipts. Further, the said view is also supported by end number of judgments. Few of them are listed below: a. CIT vs Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja [2008] 302 ITR 63 (GUJ.) b. CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (GUJ.) c. CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) d. Dy. CIT vs. Panna Corporation [2012] 74 DTR 89 (Guj-HC) e. CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar [MP HC] 263 ITR 610. f. CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Guj) g. CIT vs. President Industries (Guj HC), 258 ITR h. Moha…

M/S. Shiv Pujan Developers, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/S.Shiv Pujan Develpers Ito, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/O. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, Abf-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. Pan : Abtfs 2833 H

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…levant assessment year answers by itself in the negative. The High Court rejected the appeal holding that no question of law which requires to be referred arises. 11. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, reported in (2008) 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), once again a somewhat similar issue came up before this Court. In the said case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of tyres. Search proceedings were carried out at the residential and business premises of the assessee. On the basis of loose sheets which were seized during such search operation, the Assessing Officer held…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 459/RJT/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…n the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation in Income Tax Reference No. 15 of 2003 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. President Industries - 258 ITR 654 (Guj) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case; of CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja - 302 ITR 63 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jay Builder vs. ACIT (2013) 215 Taxman 50 (Gujarat) (viii) It is also submitted that the trial balance seized contains noting of receipts and payment both. The AO has only considered the receipts for determimrg unaccounted additional income and ignored the payment / expense side. This action of the AO i…

M/S. Krishna Developers, Jamnagar vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 458/RJT/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.458-459/Rjt/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Krishna Developers, D.C.I.T, 402, 4Th Floor, Oscar Apartment, Vs. Central Circle-2, Limda Lane, Rajkot. Jamnagar.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT. DR
Section 153C

…n the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation in Income Tax Reference No. 15 of 2003 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. President Industries - 258 ITR 654 (Guj) Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case; of CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja - 302 ITR 63 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Jay Builder vs. ACIT (2013) 215 Taxman 50 (Gujarat) (viii) It is also submitted that the trial balance seized contains noting of receipts and payment both. The AO has only considered the receipts for determimrg unaccounted additional income and ignored the payment / expense side. This action of the AO i…

Saaken Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2180/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ted sales determined by the AO in both the years. For buttressing his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj) and in the case of CIT Vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, 302 ITR 63 (Guj). He took us through both these decisions. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 5.4 extracted (supra). 9. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that whenever any income has to be determined in thi…

Saaken Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2179/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ted sales determined by the AO in both the years. For buttressing his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj) and in the case of CIT Vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja, 302 ITR 63 (Guj). He took us through both these decisions. On the other hand, the ld.DR relied upon the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded in para 5.4 extracted (supra). 9. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee was that whenever any income has to be determined in thi…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Mehul T. Desai, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 145

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT– BENCH ‘SURAT’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, cent.Cir.3 Vs. Shri Mehul T. Desai Surat. (Prop. Of Yash Clinical Laboratory) U-11 to 13, Trade Centre Opp: SBI, Nanpura, Surat. PAN : ABWPD 2707 L (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 13/11/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 13/12/2018 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against…

Shri Balkrishna M. Goswami, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 736/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…Balkrishna M. Goswami v. ITO3(2)(1)Surat /I.T.A. No.736 /Ahd/2015/A.Y.06-07 Page 1 of 5 INCOM TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL –SURAT-BENCH-SURAT BEFORE C .M. GARG, JM & O. P. MEENA, AM I.T.A No.736/Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Balkrishna M. Goswami, A- V Income Tax Officer 403, Green Terrace, Opp. . Ward 3(2)(1) Surat Atman Park, Adjan Surat PAN: AHFPG 9379N Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Revenue by Smt. Smitha V. Nair, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 21.08.2018 Date of pronouncement 07.09.2018 ORDER PER O. P. MEENA, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order…

Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2241/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi Agarwal, DR
Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. Asst. Year 2237/Hyd/17 2010-11 Assistant 2238/Hyd/17 2011-12 Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(3), 2239/Hyd/17 2012-13 [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2240/Hyd/17 2013-14 2241/Hyd/17 2014-15 2273/Hyd/17 2012-13 Assistant Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD 2274/Hyd/17 2013-14 Central Circle-2(3), [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2275/Hyd/1…

Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2240/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi Agarwal, DR
Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. Asst. Year 2237/Hyd/17 2010-11 Assistant 2238/Hyd/17 2011-12 Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(3), 2239/Hyd/17 2012-13 [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2240/Hyd/17 2013-14 2241/Hyd/17 2014-15 2273/Hyd/17 2012-13 Assistant Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD 2274/Hyd/17 2013-14 Central Circle-2(3), [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2275/Hyd/1…

Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2239/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi Agarwal, DR
Section 153ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. Asst. Year 2237/Hyd/17 2010-11 Assistant 2238/Hyd/17 2011-12 Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD Central Circle-2(3), 2239/Hyd/17 2012-13 [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2240/Hyd/17 2013-14 2241/Hyd/17 2014-15 2273/Hyd/17 2012-13 Assistant Sri Sri Gruhanirman Commissioner of India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, HYDERABAD 2274/Hyd/17 2013-14 Central Circle-2(3), [PAN: AALCS2721G] HYDERABAD 2275/Hyd/1…