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 367,154 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, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6616/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. JITF Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal TIF Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. PAN: AABCJ7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 JITF Waterways Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Jindal TIF Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCJ7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, CAs Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr.…

M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5810/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1695/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Saroj Kumar Poddar -Versus- D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1) Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Aftpp 2386 N) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi & Shri A.K.Gupta, Ar For The Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-2, Kolkata Dated 10.07..2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘ Act’ ) Dated 30.12.2016 Was Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Counsel, Sri Ronak G.Doshi &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave, Special Counsel & Shri P.K.Srihari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

…efore the Constitutional Courts on the substantial questions of law is nothing but to allow the quest for Truth to be taken to its logical end.” 35. Similarly the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P)Ltd. (2015 56 Taxmann.com 286 (Delhi) held as follows : “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 of…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Sh. Umesh Godi, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2267/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. No.2267/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs Shri Umesh Godi, Ward-4, Rohtak. H.No.886/23, Dlf Colony, Rohtak. (Pan:Agfpg7420B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm Challenging The Deletion Of Additions Vide Order Dated 12.2.2015 In Appeal No.217/2013-14 By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Rohtak {For Short “Ld.Cit(A)”} For Asstt. Year 2010-11, Revenue Preferred This Appeal. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Seema Industries Rohtak Dealing In Manufacturing & Trading Of Auto Components. For Asstt. Year 2010-11, He Has Filed His Return Of Income On 31.3.2011 Declaring An Income Of Rs.57,300/-. During Scrutiny Proceedings

For Appellant: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 46A

…ent in purchase of vehicles, in all fairness, learned CIT(A) should have exercised her co-terminus power vested in her. For this purpose, learned DR placed reliance on the decision reported in CIT vs. M/s Jan Sampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd., (2015) 375 ITR 373 (Del). 6. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned AR that after considering the material that was placed before the learned AO and after making thorough enquiries, learned AO made two additions which were challenged before the learned CIT(A) and when learned CIT(A) sought the remand report, learned AO considered the evidence produced and ga…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Chaudhary Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jalgaon

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agarwal

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…g Officer. Mere furnishing of confirmations is not sufficient unless their veracity is verified. To support his submissions the ld. DR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd., 375 ITR 373 (Delhi); ii. Suresh Kumar T. Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, 136 TTJ 247 (Bangalore). 3.1 In respect of deemed dividend the ld. DR submitted that in the Balance sheet for the year ending 31-03-2011 the assessee had shown Rs.3,68,27,750/- as loan taken from its sister concern M/s. B.N.C. Power Projects Ltd. Shri Bhagwat Narayan Chaudhary is the comm…

ITO, Ward- 41(1), New Delhi vs. Aastha Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6005/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Mrs. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80CSection 80T

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 ITO, Ward- 41(1), Aastha Goel, New Delhi. 28/42, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. New Delhi. PAN : AROPG0416H (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by : Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR Assessee by : Mrs. Rano Jain, Adv. : 25-09-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 08-10-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 20.07.2017 of the CIT(A)- 14, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2…

Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5637/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahurajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito A-134, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Ward 15(2), New Delhi. New Delhi Aaacr0366B Appellant Respondent

Section 68

…ence should be drawn against the assessee. Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Nova Promoters and Finlease 11 Pvt. Ltd. 342 ITR 169 and decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Ltd. 375 ITR 373 and contended that if AO has not done proper enquiry in the matter, matter may be remanded to the CIT(A). However, considering the facts of the case and in the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the initial burden upon the assessee to prove identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction have be…

The Dy DIT (I.T) 2(1) vs. M/S. Reuters Transactions Services Ltd

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 9227/MUM/2004[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ication of a legal issue on the basis of the facts available on record, thus, the same may be admitted. The ld. D.R further relying on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-II Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 373 (Del) and that of the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (1995) 78 Taxman 265 (Ker), submitted that as the A.O while framing the assessment failed to conduct proper scrutiny of the material, and thus instead of holding the fees earned by the assessee as “royalty” had wrongly held the same as FTS, therefor…

Nerka Chemicals P. Ltd, Gujrat vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4423/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singh

For Respondent: Sh. Girish Dave Special

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 2(22)(a)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 28Section 56(1)

…d. Special Counsel for the Revenue argued on similar line as per the contention of his application and further relied upon the decision of (i) New Delhi Television Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 282), (ii) Khairunnissa Ebrahim (201 ITR 903),(iii)Jansampark Advertising (375 ITR 373) (Del HC),(iv) Maruti Udyog (161 CTR 81) (Del HC) and (v) Union of India vs Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148. 26. On the other hand the ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee objected for the admission of the additional evidence, it was submitted that it is not open to the Revenue to make an application for admission of additional evidence. The scope of…

Estate of Late Shri Vrajlal Chandulal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 4252/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 132(4)Section 148

…ssessment and should restore it to the file of AO, if the assessment order is found to be not in accordance with the law. In support of above said contentions, she placed her reliance on the following case law:- (a) CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (375 ITR 373)(Delhi) (b) Kapurchand Shrimal vs. CIT (131 ITR 451)(SC) (c) CIT vs. Roshanlal and Smt. Chaturi Bai (134 ITR 145)(Delhi) (d) Kamalesh Kumar Mehta vs. CIT (106 ITR 855)(Cal) (e) CIT vs. Manohar Lal Nagpal (139 ITR 157)(P & H) (f) CIT vs. Chamdra Mohan Verma (244 ITR 430)(All) (g) CIT vs. Hukam Singh (276 ITR 347)(P & H) (h) Skylight Hospitality LL…

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Vivek R. Shetty, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed to that extent

ITA 6850/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6850/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Vivek R. Shetty Income Tax-32(3) 1/1, Shrinagar Building बनाम/ Room No.108, 1St Floor, C-11 Chandavarkar Road, Boriwai(W) Vs. Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeps-2750-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: N.N. Jambusaria, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…rations on the tainted group clearly revealed that the said group was engaged only in providing accommodation / bogus entries. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon;ble Delhi High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing P. Ltd. [56 Taxmann.com 286]. Per contra, Ld. Auhtorized 6 Vivek R. Shetty Assessment Year-2012-13 Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri N.N.Jambusaria, submitted that no addition could be made u/s 68 to the extent of Rs.79 Lacs since the credit of the same was not received in the impugned AY. Regarding the balance, it was fairly submitted that the matter may be re…

ACIT 21(1), Mumbai vs. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia, Mumbai

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

ITA 3933/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singha C I T - 2(1) Smt. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia Room No. 116, 1St Floor 14, 1St Floor, Ramkunk Vs. Piramal Chambers R.K. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W) Parel, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400028 Pan – Afipg7437E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja SwaroopFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Gorwadia (S/o

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "H" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri G.S. Pannu, Accountant Member and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member A C I T - 2(1) Smt. Jagruti Vijay Gorwadia Room No. 116, 1st Floor 14, 1st Floor, Ramkunk Vs. Piramal Chambers R.K. Vaidya Road, Dadar (W) Parel, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400028 PAN – AFIPG7437E Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Ms. Pooja Swaroop Respondent by: Shri Kunal Gorwadia (S/o Assessee) Date of Hearing: 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2018 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, JM This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-33, Mumbai dated 14.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Xo Infotech Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, Appeal of the Department is

ITA 3342/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. L.P.Sahu[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Xo Infotech Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, (Now Known As M/S. Saral Mining Ltd.), 304, Saffron Vs. Ward-7(3), Room No.306, Building, Panchvati To Ambawadi Road, Ambawadi C.R.Building, New Delhi. Ellisbeidge,Ahmedabad- 380006.Pan-Aaaxx0059K (Appellant) (Respondent) By Revenue : Shri Vijay Varma, Cit-D.R. By Assessee : Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…) could have made inquiry at appellate stage having co-terminus powers to that of the A.O. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Jen Sampark Advertising & Marketing Ltd., 375 ITR 373. Bank statement of the investors are on the same pattern and only one investor transferred the funds in the investor companies which is source of payment of share application money. Therefore, the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) may be reversed. He has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of Nova Promoters…

ITO 20(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Kem Hospital and Sheth Gsm College Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 864/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(4), Kem Hospital & Sheth Gms Room No.616, 6Th Floor, Collage Employees Co-Op. बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Parel, Ground Floor, Kem Mumbai-400012 Hospital Building, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaat5055H

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 253Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)Section 80P(4)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ ‘एच’’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘H’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-20(3)(4), KEM Hospital & Sheth GMS Room No.616, 6th Floor, Collage Employees Co-op. बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Credit Society Ltd. Vs. Parel, Ground Floor, KEM Mumbai-400012 Hospital Building, Parel, Mumbai-400012 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) PAN. No. AAAAT5055H राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Ashok D Jain, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 4505/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 9(2) Shri Ashok D. Jain Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor, 11, Unnat Nagar Chs, M.G. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Goregaon(W), Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-62. Pan: Aacpj7464P Appellant Respondent Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Appellant By : Shri Naresh Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 253

…ent enquiry before deleting the addition in support of his submission, the addition in support of his submission, the ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Jansamparak Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd. [375 ITR 373 (Delhi). 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of ld CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee submits that there was no reason for making addition on account of deemed dividend. The assessee made a joint venture with the company for commercial transaction. The assessee received money purely for carrying out activities fo…

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Agnishaman Dal Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4982/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito-20(2)(1) M/S Mumbai Agnishaman Dal Room No. 216, 2Nd Floor, Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., B.J. Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Byculla, Mumbai-400008 Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan:Aaaam2960N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kasat (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kasat (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO-20(2)(1) M/s Mumbai Agnishaman Dal Room No. 216, 2nd Floor, Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd., B.J. Road, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Byculla, Mumbai-400008 Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN:AAAAM2960N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop (DR) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kasat (AR) Date of hearing : 15.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue under section 253 o…

Jasamrit Creatins P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5Th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near Itc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aabcj8511H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Anju KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "J" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member M/s. Jasamrit Creations P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 6(3)(2) Flat No. 901, Building ‘B’ Room No. 503, 5th Floor Vs. Ashok Tower, Near ITC Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Hotel, Parel, Mumbai 400017 Mumbai 400020 PAN – AABCJ8511H Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Anju Kisnadwala Respondent by: Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing: 15.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 14.03.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT…

ITO 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kennigton Fabrics P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8380/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma,Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ito, 9(2)(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Kennington Fabric P. Ltd बिधम/ M.K Road, 3-A, Panchsheel, Flat No. 103, Mumbai-400 020. Raheja Township, Malad (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 097. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabck6503A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Shivratan Singrodia &

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 68

…on relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT Vs. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising and Marketing (P) Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 373 (Del). Per contra, the ld. Authorised representative (for short ‘A.R’) for the assessee relied on the order of 10 ITO vs. Kennington Fabric P. Ltd. the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT(A) duly appreciating the fact that the assessee had established beyond doubt that the amount of share application money of Rs. 67,45,000/- was…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 5629/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(2)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘C’, New Delhi Before : Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA No. 5629/Del./2012 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income-tax Officer, vs. M/s. Ganpati Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. Ward 12(1), New Delhi. (formerly Ganpati Retails Pvt. Ltd.) 63, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi (PAN-AACCG9937F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Naveen Chandra, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Date of Hearing 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.11.2017 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against t…

Samkit Diamonds Exporters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4133/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay K ParikhFor Respondent: Shri. V. Vidyadhar,Sr DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “H” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters ACIT 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, v. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AAKFS5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 4383/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ ACIT 19(3),Matru Mandir, Samkit Diamonds 2n d floor, R.No. 206, Tardeo…