CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports

324 ITR 95High Court2010#2716 most cited

What is CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports authority for?

Non-response to Section 133(6) notices or the assessee's inability to compel third parties to reply cannot be the sole or sufficient ground for rejecting books of account under Section 145(3).

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports · 324 ITR 95 · rejection of books of account · Section 145(3) · Section 133(6) · non-response to notices · failure to produce third parties · grounds for rejection of books · assessment procedure · Delhi High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 37Section 115BBESection 132Section 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

rejection of books of accountsection 145(3)mercantile system of accountingsection 145section 260section 260acommercial expediencysection 30section 127profits and gains of business or professionsection 133(6)section 133

Judgments citing CIT v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6692/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Realtech Infrastructure Income Tax Ltd., D-22, 2Nd Floor Central Circle-15 Room No.354 Defence Colony 3Rd Floor, Jhandewalan New Delhi – 110 024 Extension, New Delhi- 110055 Pan/Gir No. Aadcr4608R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)

…ok results as per his whims and fancy. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223 and CIT vs. Jaspack Elegant Exports reported in 324 ITR 95. The relevant operative portion of the said judgements are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity in view of the settled position of law involved therein. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made on account of cost of goods sold to the tune of Rs.4,14,39,084/-. Accordingly, the ground No.…

ACIT, Sangrur vs. M/S Aggarsain Fibres Ltd., Samana

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

ITA 829/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudarshan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…y was pointed out by the A.O., therefore, merely on the basis of reduction in GP rate in comparison to the earlier years, the books of accounts cannot be rejected. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) • CIT Vs. Faridabad Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 336 ITR 129(P&H) • CIT Vs. R.K. Rice Mills (2009) 319 ITR 173 (P&H) 12. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the arbitrary additions made by the A.O. 13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…e case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 120, Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of CIT- XII vs Smt Poonam Rani in ITA No. 406/2009 vide order dated 07/05/2010 and CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi. 15. From the record, we also found that the G.P. shown by the assessee in the preceding three years are as under: ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 18 AY Turnover Gross Profit G.P. rate 2012-13 69,65,32,229 5,36,96,413 7.71% 2013-14 83,44,77,620 7,22,76,765 8.66% 2014-15 96,11,74,921 8,19,08,727 8.52% Weighted average 249,21,84,770 20,78,81,905 8…

M/S Ganpati Exclusive Designer Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 56(1)

…e case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 120, Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi in the case of CIT- XII vs Smt Poonam Rani in ITA No. 406/2009 vide order dated 07/05/2010 and CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi. 15. From the record, we also found that the G.P. shown by the assessee in the preceding three years are as under: ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 18 AY Turnover Gross Profit G.P. rate 2012-13 69,65,32,229 5,36,96,413 7.71% 2013-14 83,44,77,620 7,22,76,765 8.66% 2014-15 96,11,74,921 8,19,08,727 8.52% Weighted average 249,21,84,770 20,78,81,905 8…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…l years on same set of facts. Reliance is placed on 294 ITR 655 (Gauhati) MKB (Asia) P. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. 2. Non maintenance of stock register cannot be a ground for rejection of account in every case it depends upon the nature of business. 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 192 Taxman 167 (Delhi) & Commissioner of Income – Tax XII v. Poonam Rani. 3.The onus was on revenue to show that accounts were incomplete or incurred and true profits could not be deduced from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant which were also duly audited and no advers…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…l years on same set of facts. Reliance is placed on 294 ITR 655 (Gauhati) MKB (Asia) P. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. 2. Non maintenance of stock register cannot be a ground for rejection of account in every case it depends upon the nature of business. 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 192 Taxman 167 (Delhi) & Commissioner of Income – Tax XII v. Poonam Rani. 3.The onus was on revenue to show that accounts were incomplete or incurred and true profits could not be deduced from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant which were also duly audited and no advers…

M/S Pawan Enterprises, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 76/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…esa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. (iii) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) :-Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Sec. 145(3) provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in s. 144, where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub-s. (1) or the Accounting Standards as notified under sub-s. (2) have not be…

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Kangra vs. DCIT, Palampur

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

ITA 909/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mahajan, Vs. The Dcit, Government Contractor, Circle-Palampur Lambi Gali, Dunga Bazar, Nurpur Distt. Kangra (H.P.) Pan No. Ajfpm4259B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Lagan Preet Sandhu, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…u/s 143(1) of the Act, however, till date nothing wrong has been found and no reopening of assessment has been done. The Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘CIT Vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports” [2010] 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) and also of the Jurisdictional High Court Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the ‘Pandit Bros. Vs. CIT’ [1954] 26 ITR 159 (Pun) and further on the decision of the ‘CIT Vs. Bindal Apparels’ [2011] 322 ITR 410 (Del). 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and has also invited our attentio…

Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-21 vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co

The appeals are partly allowed in the above terms

ITA/314/2016HC Delhi08 Feb 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 145

…rs on same set of facts. Reliance is placed on 294 ITR 655: [Gauhati] MKB [Asia) P. Ltd, v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2. Non maintenance of stock register cannot be a ground for rejection of account in every case it depends upon the nature of business. 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 192 Taxman 167 (Delhi) & Commissioner of Income-Tax- XII v. Poonam Rani. 3. The onus was on revenue to show that accounts were incomplete or incorrect and true profits could not be deduced from the books of accounts maintained by the appellant which were also duly audited and no…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 145(3)

…(Guj.) (ii). CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani, 326 ITR 223 (Del.). (iii). Ashok Refractories P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 279 ITR 457 (Cal.) (iv). Swapna Rani Sarkar vs. CIT, 320 ITR 70 (Gau) (v). M. Durai Raj vs. CIT, 33 ITR 182 (SC) (vi). CIT vs. M/s. Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95(Del.) (vii). Pandit Bors. Vs. CIT, 26 ITR 159 (Punj) (viii). Madnani Construction Corpn. P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 296 ITR 45(Gau). (ix). Malani Ramjivan Jagannath vs. ACIT, 316 ITR 120 (Raj.) (x). CIT vs. Rajni Kant Dave, 281 ITR 6 (All.) (xi). CIT vs. Om Overseas, 173 Taxman 185 (P&H) (xii). Jaganmohan Reddy P. vs. Narasimham K.V.L. JJ, 62 ITR 528 (xiii)…

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Raj Girish Karia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1279/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…set off for the difference in stock of Rs. 41,69,363/-. 12.2 Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 195 (Guj), CIT vs. Jasjack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) and ITO vs. M/s. Neelam Industries (ITA No. 8133/Mum/2011) – order of the ITAT ‘B’ Bench Mumbai. He also submits that the Inspector’s report regarding comparable cases does ITA No. 1279 & 1037/MUM/2015 18 not give out the volume of business and how it is applicable to the case of the assessee. 12.3 On the other hand, the learned DR relies…

Raj Girish Karia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 23(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1037/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…set off for the difference in stock of Rs. 41,69,363/-. 12.2 Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relies on the decision in the case of Jaytick Intermediates (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 73 taxmann.com 195 (Guj), CIT vs. Jasjack Elegance Exports (2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) and ITO vs. M/s. Neelam Industries (ITA No. 8133/Mum/2011) – order of the ITAT ‘B’ Bench Mumbai. He also submits that the Inspector’s report regarding comparable cases does ITA No. 1279 & 1037/MUM/2015 18 not give out the volume of business and how it is applicable to the case of the assessee. 12.3 On the other hand, the learned DR relies…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Kayakalp Herbal Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 609/JPR/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Pratima Kaushik, CIT - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139(1)Section 153A

…resa’s Oil Mills Vs State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) Accounts regularly maintained in the course of business have to be taken as correct unless there are strong and sufficient reason to indicate that they are unreliable. (iii) CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) :-Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that Sec. 145(3) provides for assessment in the manner prescribed in s. 144, where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee or where either the method of accounting provided in sub- s. (1) or the Accounting Standards as notified under sub-s. (2) have not b…

ACIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Firmenich Aromatics (I) P. Tld, Mumbai

In the result, departmental ground no

ITA 3744/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Mrs. Puja Swaroop
Section 145Section 145(3)Section 40A

…ingh v/s ITO (2001) 73 TTJ 878 (Asr). The AO has relied upon the data of Cotton Corporation of India while in assessee’s case no such data has been considered. Our view is supported by the decision of Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Gasjak Elegance Export 324 ITR 95 Delhi wherein it is held that no provision either in the Act in the Rules regarding assessee carrying business of this nature to maintain Stock Register, as part of its accounts has been brought to our notice. As regards non-production of Stock Register, the assessee has given an explanation which has been accepted not 7 M/s Firmenich Aromatics…

ITO, Uttar Pradesh vs. Shri Narendra Kumar Dhingra, Saharanpur

In the result ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1508/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Narendra Kumar Dhingra, Ward-1, Prop. M/S. Bhaga Ram Court Road, Godha Ram, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh Dhingar Market, Kakkar Ganj, Saharanpur Pan:Abipd6038L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Chander Aggarwal
Section 145(3)

…gister in cloth trade. The ld DR could not point out any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A), who has held that rejection of books of accounts is not proper based on several judicial precedents. Furthermore, Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in case of [2010] 324 ITR 95 (Del) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Jas Jack Elegance Exports has held that mere non-production of stock records cannot be a sole basis of rejection of books of accounts. Further, the ld Assessing Officer has accepted the gross profit ratio of the assessee of 12.33% for the year which is based on the same books of accounts , however, has tinkered…

DCIT, Alwar vs. British Health Products (I) Ltd., Bhiwadi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 60/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar - DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

…ccount was upheld by the Tribunal. As no perversity or illegality in the finding was pointed out by the Department, no substantial question of law arose for determination.” 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports [2010] 324 ITR 95 ( Delhi) held as under:- “Held, dismissing the appeal, that it was not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not followed either the case or mercantile system of accounting stipulated is sub-section (1) of section 145 of the Act. It was also not the case of the Revenue that the Central Government had notified any particular accounting stan…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Asansol vs. Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR
Section 144

…irish M Mehta reported in 296 ITR (AT) 125 (Rajkot) CIT vs Smt Poonam Rani reported in 326 ITR 223 (Del) CIT vs Paradise Holidays reported in 325 ITR 13 (Del) Gamdiwal Dairy vs ACIT reported in 7 ITR (Tribunal) 114 CIT vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports reported in 324 ITR 95 (Del) Anoj Kumar Aggarwalla reported in 74 TTJ (Gau) 573 2.13. The ld CITA observed that the decision relied upon by the ld AO on Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in 108 ITR 424 , the ld AO had found that proper accounts were not available and had estimated the profit of the assessee which addition was sustained to a reduced amount by the tribunal. The…

Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai vs. Vivek Shyam Johari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5799/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2012 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2009-10) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer -14(3)(4), Shri Vivek Shyam Johari, 3Rd Floor, Kadel Mansion, 608,6Th Floor, Earnest House, Vs. 65-67, Cawel Cross Lane-3, Nariman Point, Mumbqai-400002 Mumbai-400021

…0.1 %. He has placed reliance on the following case laws and submitted that non-maintenance of stock register cannot be a ground for rejection of books of account: a) CIT vs. BINDALS APPARELS (2011) 332 ITR 410 (Del) b) CIT V/s JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS(2010) 324 ITR 95 (Del) c) CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (Del.) (HC) [2010], 325 ITR 13 (Del.), d) Income-Tax Officer vs Rajni Kant Dave (1996) 58 ITD 510 All. 7. We notice that all the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not related to the diamond trade. It is a known fact that the price of the 4 CO No.99/M/14 diamond would depend upon various criteria, of whic…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (PAN: AAHFM3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. JCIT, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (PAN: AAHFM3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (PAN: AAHFM3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. JCIT, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (PAN: AAHFM3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) And ITA Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 ACIT, Circl…