CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

140 ITR 705High Court1983#1219 most cited

What is CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Tax litigation is not an adversarial process; the Assessing Officer and Tribunal have a duty to determine the assessee's correct taxable income. A valid claim, such as an exemption, cannot be denied merely because it was not explicitly made by the assessee.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. · 140 ITR 705 · non-adversarial tax litigation · AO duty correct income · Tribunal plenary jurisdiction · claim not denied · Section 147 · Section 148 · Section 144 · Section 263 · correct taxable income · tax litigation nature.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 144Section 153ASection 68Section 263Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 124(3)(a)section 124(3)section 124section 271aabstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsurvey under section 133asection 131(1a)section 40adumb documentssection 271aa

Judgments citing CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

The Deputy Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1, Rajkot vs. Jayesh Harakhji Patel, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Jayesh Harakhji Patel, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.1, Rajkot

ITA 59/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Rjt/2018 &

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 77/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2) Rajkot, Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 76/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 75/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Shri Vishal Mehta, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2 (1) (2), Rajkot

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms

ITA 74/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiand Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No.74 To 77/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: (2012-13 To 2015-2016) Vishal Mehta Income Tax Officer, बनाम Pravin Chamber, 1St Floor, Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot Kothariya Naka Soni Bazar, Vs. Rajkot-360 001 Pan/Gir No.Ahtpm 7247 B "थायीलेखासं /. जीआइआरसं /. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar & Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyhu Singh, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR &
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 69A

…to score a point but are meant to determine the correct income of tax payer for the year in question in accordance with provision for Income Tax Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) Private Limited (1983) 140 ITR 705 (Madras) which is bound form in Ramco Cement Limited Vs DCIT (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 79 (Madras) and which also mentions the decision of State of Tamil Nadu vs Arulmurugan and Company (1982) 51 STC 381 (Madras) (copy enclosed). It is, hence, requested that irrespective of decision of Ld. assessing officer and Ld. CIT(A), Ld. ITAT may independently…

Jaipur Jewellery Show, Jaipur vs. ACIT-DCIT Circle (Exemp.), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

…1 JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW VS ACIT , CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Jaipur Jewellery Show cuke The ACIT Vs. TF-01, Gold Souk, Jagatpura Road (Exemption) Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAJ 2064 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA…

Venkata Ramireddy Kalluru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurnool

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 630/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkata Ramireddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalluru, Ward-2, Kurnool. 87/1281/12-F, Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh – 518599. Pan : Dkwpk3931F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 294Section 69A

…le income and the tax thereon has to be arrived at in accordance with law by following a judicious approach. 5. The tax authorities omitted to consider the ratio laid down by the Honourable Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Express (Madurai) 1983 140 ITR 705 (Mad) (HC) wherein the Court observed that Income-tax proceedings cannot be equated to a lies between two parties since the object is to arrive at the correct taxable income and in this backdrop the tax authorities ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the cash deposits made prior to the demonetisation period are supported by a sou…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2050/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2049/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2048/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2047/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…Paper Book. In Support of this claim, the appellant relies on the following case laws: High Court of Bombay in case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders in 23 taxmann.com 23. Decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad). 8.15. Following the ratios laid down by the Hon'ble Courts, we are of the view that there is no basis for addition of Rs. 26 crores as there was no separate declaration in detail i. e., year-wise, head-wise, group concern wise and quantities, etc during the course of search and seizure operation. From the statements of the assessee as quot…

Hsi Automotive Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.867/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hsi Automotive Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Survey No.73, A Block, #100, Vs. Income Tax, Thandalam Post, Mevalurkuppam, Corporate Circle-2(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai. Kancheepuram – 602 105. [Pan: Aaach-2804-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri V. Veeraraghavan & Shri K. Senguttuvan, Advocates ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr. S. Palanikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri V. Veeraraghavan, &For Respondent: Dr. S. Palanikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर "सह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.867/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. HSI Automotive Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner of Survey No.73, A Block, #100, Vs. Income Tax, Thandalam Post, Mevalurkuppam, Corporate Circle-2(2), Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai. Kancheepuram – 602 105. [PAN: AAACH-2804-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu vs. Gravita Metal Inc, Kathua

ITA 594/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(xviii)

…ted part relief to the assesse by observing as under: 4.7. I am also of the considered opinion that the first appellate authority ought to consider the issue on merits. Hon'ble Madras High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. [1983)140 ITR 705 (Madras), observed that unlike a law suit in civil appeals, in tax litigation, it cannot be treated as a "lis" between two rival parties but the job of the Assessing Officer is to arrive at the correct taxable income. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the income becomes taxable on the footing of accrual only when the right to receive the…