Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 153A.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. (56 Taxmann.com 286), spanning 2016 to 2026.

56 Taxmann.com 286High Court2015#478 most cited

What is CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising · Jansampark Advertising · 375 ITR 373 · CIT(A) obligation to inquire · independent verification of facts · section 250(4) · Rule 46A · additional evidence · deleting additions · unexplained investments · cash credits · duty of appellate authority

Also reported as

375 ITR 373

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 132(4)Section 153C

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 292cc summons under section 131 section 250(4)dumb documents section 132(4a)section 292c child loose papers satisfaction note section 131 section 292 section 29

Judgments citing CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, Circle-17(1), New Delhi vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground number 5 and 6 of the appeal of the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 6939/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Mps Infotecnics Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax (Formerly Known As Visesh Circle-17(1), Infotecnic Ltd), 703, Arunachal New Delhi Building, 19, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacv4805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 32(1)Section 68

…t of unexplained cash credits for want of proper enquiry by the AO but without making enquiry or directing further enquiry u/s 250(4) of the Act as laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Limited (2015) 375 ITR 373? 7. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT (A) is justified in deleting disallowance of Rs. 7,20,20,000/- on account of depreciation on alleged addition of Rs. 13.36 crores in ‘software and Intellectual Property Rights by ignoring the findings of the AO that during assessment proceedings the assessee failed to prove the sup…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Prakausali Investment India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 3126/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiyaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 3126/Del/2017 (A.Y 2010-11) (Through Video Conferencing)

Section 250Section 68

…had actually capacity to make such investment by not invoking his power u/s 250 (4) of the Act in contravention to the ratio decidendi as laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Limited (2015) 375 ITR 373? 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 and declared total income of Rs.42,25,206/-. The Assessing Officer after taking into consideration the documents and replies filed by the asses…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaizen Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection stands dismissed

ITA 2900/MUM/2019[2010-1]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit, Circle – 6(3)(2) M/S. Kaizen Engineering Systems Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai Shanta Prasad, Hindu Colony Lane, Vs. 01, Dadar, Mumbai-400 014

For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ances of the case and in law, ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s.68 of the Ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) disregarding the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CJT-H vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd, 375 ITR 373 (Delhi) wherein Hon’ble Court while remanding the matter held that two appellate authorities viz., Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal, are also forums for fact-finding, in event of Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry on facts would naturally shift to door of said appellate authoriti…

ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Nextgen Constructions P.Tld (Changed to M/S Aetius Construction P. Ltd Which Is Further Amalgamated With M/S Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.Daniel-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-CIT- DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…1 Nextgen Construction Private Limited Assessment Year :2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह, उपा"" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3593/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer-14(3)(4) Nextgen Construction Pvt. Ltd. Room No.482(1), 4th Floor (Changed to M/s.Aetius Construction Pvt.Ltd. which is further amalgamated with M/s. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road बनाम/ Supergold Properties…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bhagwati Contractor, New Delhi

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

ITA 3070/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Bajpayee, CA &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

…h he made ad hoc disallowances. The ld. CIT(A), while deleting the above two additions have neither called for a remand report nor given an opportunity to the AO. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., 375 ITR 373, has held that although it is the obligation of the AO to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event of AO failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper enquiry shifts to 4 Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by AO on ground of lack of inquiry. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi…

M/S. Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aabcf5804F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit C/O. M/S.Rra Taxindia, Central Circle-18 D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi-110049 Pan No. Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle – 27 Vs Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. New Delhi Ltd. H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No. Aaecm6235C (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.175/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit H-123, Sector-63, Noida Central Circle -27, Pan No. Aaecm6235C New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Duxton Hills Builders Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 27, New Delhi , H-123, Sector-63, Noida Pan No.Aaccd3537A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Duxton Hills Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit

Section 131Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Central Circle – 27 Vs Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi H-123, Sector-63, Noida PAN No. AABCF5804F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fusion Conbuild (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT C/o. M/s.RRA TAXINDIA, Central Circle-18 D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi-110049 PAN No. AACCD3537A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessment Year: 2006-07 ACIT, Central Circle – 27 Vs Mount Echo Buildwell Pvt. New Delhi Ltd. H-123, Se…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Fusion Conbuild Pvt. Ltd., Noida

The appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1396/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Section 131Section 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ags Retail Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5375/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Central Circle-18, Vs M/s. AGS Retail Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, New Delhi. Local Shopping Centre, Sharda Niketan, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN :AAHCA 3643H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR Revenue by Sh. Rajeshwar Pd. C.A. Date of Hearing 11.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement 18.12.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 24/6/2016 in appeal No. 174/14- 15/17/15-16 passed by the learned Com…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Shri Suresh V. Jain, DCIT CC -13, C/o- Chandan Parmar& Old CGO Building, M. K. बिधम/ Co. Office No. 1, 3rd floor, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Chaman Chambers, Vs. Cinema Lane, Near Metro Cinema, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAUPJ3284B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : And आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4198/Mum/2007 & Cross Objection No. 261/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) DCIT CC -13, Sh…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. D- Art Furniture System Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)

Section 153ASection 254(2)

…e Ld. CIT(A), being a fact finding authority, has erred in facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee without independently verifying the facts of the case, as mandated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Jansampark Advertising (375 ITR 373) 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/ all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” (B) At the outset, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld. CIT (DR)”, for short] brought to our notice, at the time of hearing that tax effect in this appeal is below Rs. 50,00,000/-.…

ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S D.S. Stocks Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1881/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1881/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S D.S. Stocks Securities Pvt. Ltd. 63, Radha Bazar Street, 3Rd Floor, Room No.43, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacd9254E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - 23, Kolkata Dated 01.06.2017 Passed In Case No.200/Cit(A)-23/Wd-6(1)/16-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised During The Course Of Hearing Seeks To Reverse The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 68 Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of Rs.6,23,00,000/- In The Nature Of Share Capital/Premium Added By The Assessing Officer In His Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2015. The Assessing Authority Had Held That The Assessee Had Failed To Not Only To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of This Investor Entities Turning Out To Be Shell Companies But Also There Is No Explanation In Support Of Extraordinary Premium Charged Per Unit Of Shares.

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1881/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata Vs. M/s D.S. Stocks Securities Pvt. Ltd. 63, Radha Bazar Street, 3rd Floor, Room No.43, Kol-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACD9254E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT Respondent by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 22/10/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’s app…

ACIT 18(2), Mumbai vs. Kamini Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4027/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4027/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Acit-18(2) M/S. Kamini Enterprises 302, 3Rd Floor (Earlier Kamini Jewels) बनाम/ 70/70A, 1St Floor, Lakshmi Premises Earnest House, Ncpa Marg Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfk-4416-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Tralshawala- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas - Ld.CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

…the assessee could not file sufficient documentary evidences before Ld.AO during assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the 13 M/s. Kamini Enterprises Assessment Year: 2012-13 case of CIT V/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 286], aptly observed as under: - 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation…

Eshita Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO -WD 1 (2), Thane

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. K.Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…s. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements to support the submissions that additions were not justified. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT V/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 286], though it fit to afford fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the purchases transactions by filing the requisite information / documentary evidences. However, the assessee again failed to furnish the required details i.e. qualitative / quantitative details, item-wise / party-wise, material purchased etc. as called for by Ld.…

ACIT - Circle-3, Kalyan vs. Uday Bharatkumar Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms.K. Jothilakhsmi Nayak–Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Marlon Rego- Ld. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…to some reasonable estimations. Reliance was placed on various judicial pronouncements to support the said submissions. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A), in terms of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT V/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [2015 56 Taxmann.com 286], afforded fresh opportunity to the assessee and directed the assessee to establish the genuineness of the purchases 4 Uday Bharatkumar Mehta Assessment Year-2011-12 by filing the requisite information / documentary evidences. However, the assessee again failed to furnish the required details in prescribed format i.e. qualitative / quanti…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Worldwide Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, three appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2602/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 264Section 271

…ITA No.- 2599/Del/2016 Worldwide Realtors Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 2599/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2003-04) ACIT, M/s Worldwide Realtors Pvt. Central Circle-14, Vs. Ltd., New Delhi. Flat No.-4,R.R. Apartment 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli, New Delhi. PAN No: AAACW1175B APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No:- 2600/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2004-05) ACIT, M/s Worldwide Realtors Pvt. Central Circle-14, Vs. Ltd., New Delhi. Flat No.-4,R.R. Apartment 3-4, Manglapuri, Mehrauli…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Worldwide Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, three appeals by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT(DR)

Section 264Section 271

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vhm Apparels P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and the Cross-objection by the

ITA 3078/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2007-08 Ito 8(3)(3) Vhm Apparels P. Ltd., Mumbai. Mahta Mansion, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Near Mumbadevi Temple, Mumbai 400 002. Pan Aaacv2187N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N R AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2007-08 ITO 8(3)(3) VHM Apparels P. Ltd., Mumbai. Mahta Mansion, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Near Mumbadevi Temple, Mumbai 400 002. PAN AAACV2187N (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No. 45/Mum/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.3078/Mum/2017 for Assessment Year : 2007-08) VHM Apparels P. Ltd., ITO 8(3)(3) Mumbai 400 002. Mumbai. Vs. PAN AAACV2187N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) For the Revenue : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra For the Assessee : Shri N R Agarwal Date of Hearing :06.0…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Kothari Fabtex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 5517/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri G.Manjunathadcit-4(2)(2) Vs. M/S Kothari Fabtex Pvt.Ltd. Room No.640, 6Th Floor 50/52, Kothari Chambers, Aaykar Bhawan Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road M.K.Road Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaack2689L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

…of certain paper documents deleted additions made by the AO. In this regard, he relied upon plethora of judicial precedents, including the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s. Jansampark advertising and marketing Pvt.Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 373. 7. The Ld. AR for the assessee, on the other hand strongly supporting order of the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has appraised correct facts, in light of various evidences filed by the assessee, including identity of the loan creditors and also documents to prove genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the parties. The ld.…

Income Tax Officer -33(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil Govind Agre, Mumbai

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

ITA 2312/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO-33(3)(4), Room. No. Shri Sunil Govind Agre, 255/21-B, 612, 6th floor, C-12, Sankalp CHS Ltd., Sector 5/2, Vs. Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai- BKC, Mumbai. 400067 PAN No. AEGPA0962H Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 31/07/2019 Date of pronouncement : 31/07/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant as…

Savitaben Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4402/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. VimalPunmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Savitaben Patel, Prop. Assistant Commissioner of Dipesh Engineering, Works, Vs. Income Tax-Cir 2, Mumbai. W-44, c, Additional Ambernath, 2nd Area Anand Nagar, Ambernath, East- 421506. PAN No. AFPPP7431L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dy. Commissioner of Smt. Savitaben Patel, Prop. Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Dipesh Engineering, Kalyan, 2nd floor, Mohan Works, W-44, c, Additional Plaza, Khadakpada, Wayale Ambernath, 2nd…