CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.

385 ITR 346High Court2016#198 most cited

What is CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A statement made by an assessee under Section 131 during search proceedings, without any corroborating incriminating material found during the search, cannot solely constitute incriminating evidence for making additions in assessments under Section 153A or 153C.

371

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park · IBC Knowledge Park · 385 ITR 346 · section 153A · section 153C · section 131 statement · incriminating material · search assessment · additions without evidence · completed assessments · undisclosed income

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 108287 CTR 261

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 131Section 132ASection 69
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdsection 153a proceedingssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 158bbsection 153(a)jdasection 153c(1)documents seizedsection 158bsection 158section 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 110/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…o the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 of Karnataka High Court. This case was decided vide order dated 25th July, 2014. However, subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Ch…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 109/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…o the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 of Karnataka High Court. This case was decided vide order dated 25th July, 2014. However, subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Ch…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 108/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…o the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 of Karnataka High Court. This case was decided vide order dated 25th July, 2014. However, subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Ch…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 107/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…o the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 of Karnataka High Court. This case was decided vide order dated 25th July, 2014. However, subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Ch…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

ITA 106/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…o the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2014) 49 taxmann.com 98 of Karnataka High Court. This case was decided vide order dated 25th July, 2014. However, subsequently the Karnataka High Court in the case of IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. (2016) 385 ITR 346 followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla (supra) and held that there had to be incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions were sought to be made pursuant to search and seizure operation. The Calcutta High Court in Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. (supra), too, followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Kabul Ch…

DCIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Satish Jagannath Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2818/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Krishna Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 158B

…Pr. CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com-292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2- 2017]; the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (Kar.); the Hon'ble Kalkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016]. In MeetaGutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated that unless there is incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions are sought t…

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 26/RJT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

…jurisdictional High Court as also other Courts. (I) Dr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa 394 ITR 184 (Guj.) (II) PCIT vs Meeta Gutgutia 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) (III) CIT Cen-III vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Del] (IV) CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. 385 ITR 346 (Kar) (V) Pr. CIT-2 v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [ITA No. 264/2016 (VI) CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017) 386 ITR 483 (Bom.). (VII) Pr. CIT v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta [ITANO. 810/2016 (VIII) Pr. CIT v. Ram Avtar Verma [2017] 395 ITR 252 (IX) Pr.CIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 5.48 Now, coming to the facts and circumstances of t…

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 25/RJT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

…jurisdictional High Court as also other Courts. (I) Dr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa 394 ITR 184 (Guj.) (II) PCIT vs Meeta Gutgutia 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) (III) CIT Cen-III vs. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412 (Del] (IV) CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. 385 ITR 346 (Kar) (V) Pr. CIT-2 v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [ITA No. 264/2016 (VI) CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa (2017) 386 ITR 483 (Bom.). (VII) Pr. CIT v. Mahesh Kumar Gupta [ITANO. 810/2016 (VIII) Pr. CIT v. Ram Avtar Verma [2017] 395 ITR 252 (IX) Pr.CIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. [2018] 89 taxmann.com 5.48 Now, coming to the facts and circumstances of t…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rishabraj Infra Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3246/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Riddhi Mishra.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Karan Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) ACIT, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj InfraPvtLtd., Old CGO Bldg, 804, 212, 2nd Floor, B Wing, 8th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, MG Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. PAN/GIR No. : AADCV2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.DR Revenue by : Mr.Karan Jain.AR Date of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has file…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. G. Lakshmi Aruna

ITA/705/2018HC Karnataka31 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153DSection 260A

…e Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers jurisdiction on the Commissioner to exercise the power of the jurisdiction. 2) (2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar) - CIT VS. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt., Ltd ; held as under: “46. 153C is relevant for the purposes of this case. Sub-section (1) of Section 153C begins with a non- obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any valuable as…

Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 706/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ramakrishnan and Shrenik Chordia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member ITA.Nos.706 and 707/Hyd/2022 along with S.A.Nos.47 and 48/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 and 2017-18 Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Vs. Income Tax Officer, Venkata Satyanarayana, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AEKPV4914Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ramakrishnan and Shrenik Chordia, CA Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR. Date of hearing: 15.03.2023 Date of pronouncement: 23.03.2023 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. The captioned appeal…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Anupam Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 172/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 172/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Anupam Nirman Private Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati Vs Limited 1St Floor, Kabita Mansion Rajgarh Link Road Chandmari Guwahati - 781003 [Pan : Aaica 4965 B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor Jain, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-2, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 27/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,20,77,310/- On Account Estimation Of The Net Profit @ 7% Of Total Turnover For The Year. (Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 49,05,724/- On Account Of Disallowance Towards Interest Expense Against Loan Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. (Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Points Of Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 11,26,247/- On

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 40Section 43B

…s followed in the cases of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 529 (Guj)], Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. Devangi alias Rupa [2017-TIOL-319-HC-AHM-IT], CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 385 ITR 346 (Kar)], Pr. CIT 2 vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [2016- I.T.A. No. 172/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Anupam Nirman Private Limited 6 TIOL-2099-HC-KOL-IT] and CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa [(2016) 386 ITR 483 (Bom)]. Reference was also made to the two decisions of that Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Mahesh Kumar Gupta [2016-TIOL-2994-HC…

Smt. Sulochana Ramesh, Bengaluru vs. The ACIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 153CSection 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)

…and consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.153C of the Act, is bad in law for the assessment year under appeal having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK P. LTD., reported in 385 ITR 346 [Kar]. Page 7 of 13 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the completion of the assessment u/s.144 of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, in as much as, the appellant's husband was appearing before the learned A.O. only to submit and emphasis again and again that…

DCIT Cir 4(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gemini Engi Fab Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1457/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rutuja Pawar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, D.R
Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…t in Pr. CIT v. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017] the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P) Ltd [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (Kar.); the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016]. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated that unless there is incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions are sought…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwinkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1324/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

…in Pr. CIT v. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (Kar.); the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated that unless there is incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions are sought t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 3(3)(1)., Mumbai vs. M/S Jinesh Ashwingkumar Matalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 1321/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shailesh ParmarFor Respondent: Hemantkumar Chimanlal
Section 132Section 153CSection 69C

…in Pr. CIT v. Soumya Construction (P) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (Kar.); the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated that unless there is incriminating material qua each of the AYS in which additions are sought t…

Atepl Rahee Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-62(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1570/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 1Section 2Section 271Section 271ASection 92CSection 92D

…there was an inadvertent mistake has been rejected. In our consideration opinion, there is no reason as to why the plea of inadvertent mistake should be rejected on the touchstone of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt.Ltd vs C.I.T 348 ITR 346, wherein, it was explained that there should not be any penalty on account of human error. Furthermore, without any loss of Revenue, it is strange that penalty has been levied. In this connection, the case laws referred by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are germane and support the case of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the penalty…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2165/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old CGO Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 PAN No. AACCG 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR : Assessee by None Da…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2164/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old CGO Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 PAN No. AACCG 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR : Assessee by None Da…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2163/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old CGO Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 PAN No. AACCG 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR : Assessee by None Da…