How many judgments cite CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. (63 ITR 411), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 147, Section 153A, Section 35D, Section 40(a)(i).

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

63 ITR 411Supreme Court of India1967#1169 most cited

What is CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not required to repeat its reasons when it fully agrees with the conclusions of the lower appellate authority and has no further grounds to add, even as the final fact-finding body.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons · 63 ITR 411 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITAT duty to record reasons · reasons for findings · agreement with CIT(A) · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · final fact-finding authority

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 147 Section 153A Section 35D Section 40(a)(i)Section 148 Section 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 35d prohibited by law retraction of statement colourable device statement under section 132(4)written down value mli section 30 short term capital gains block of assets short term capital gain business connection

Judgments citing CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd ( Formerly Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu, Mumbai

ITA 5299/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Section 143(3)

…loan transaction against security of the assets. We, concur with the detailed and reasoned findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, they are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y.Pillah & Sons, 63 ITR 411 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Global Vantedge P. Ltd., 354 ITR 21 held that where the Tribunal concur with the view of CIT(A), the findings of CIT(A) need not be reproduced. 25.4 We find that in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, wherein after the sale of asset the same asset was leased back to the…

Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd ( Formerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6838/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)

…is a loan transaction against security of the assets. We, concur with the detailed and reasoned findings of the CIT(A) on this issue, they are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y.Pillah & Sons, 63 ITR 411 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Global Vantedge P. Ltd., 354 ITR 21 held that where the Tribunal concur with the view of CIT(A), the findings of CIT(A) need not be reproduced. 25.4 We find that in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, wherein after the sale of asset the same asset was leased back to the Punjab St…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru vs. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, Mysuru

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1130/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey**

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…1/[2018] 404 ITR 344*; CIT* v. *Vegetable Products Ltd.* [1973] 88 ITR 192(SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in *CIT* v. *K.Y. Pilliah & Sons* [1976] 63 ITR 411 (SC)*; Dy. CIT* v. *Ratan Corpn.* [2005] 145 Taxman 503/197 CTR 536 (Guj.); *Asstt. CIT* v. *Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary* [IT Appeal No. 828/JP/16, dated 30-6- 2017]; *CIT* v. *Ashok Kumar Soni* [2008] 166 Taxman 371/[2007] 291 ITR 172 (Raj.); *Kailahben Manharlal Chokshi* v. *CIT* [2008] 174 Taxman 466/[2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.); *CIT* v. *Ompra…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT. RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1496/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2003-2004

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 40Section 80H

…a loan transaction against security of the assets. We, concur with the detailed and reasoned findings of the CIT (A) on this issue, they are not reproduced for the sake of brevity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pillah & Sons, 63 ITR 411 and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Global Vantedge P. Ltd., 354 ITR 21 held that where the Tribunal concur with the view of CIT(A), the findings of CIT(A) need not be reproduced. 25.4 We find that in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, wherein after the sale of asset the same asset was leased back to the Punjab Sta…

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY Pillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy Commissioner of income Tax Ratan Corpn., (2005) 197 CTR 530 (Gujarat), The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer Vs. Shri Devendra Kumar Choudhary, 2 S-10 to 2-5-18, Basant Vihar, Bhilwara, ITA No. 828/JP/16, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291. ITR, 172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharial Chokshi…

Bajaj Holdngs & Investment Ltd ( Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

Modi Entertainment Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5 (1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed

ITA 3051/DEL/2007[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 4

…that the provisions of section 14A were applicable with full force to the corresponding provisions u/s 115J. 6.21. Ld. Principal CIT(DR) has, in this regard, referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein in para 10, it has been observed as under: “10. The form of the second question needs some explanation. The Income-tax Officer worked out the gross profit on the estimated turnover of Rs. 12 lakhs at 6.5% and that the profit amounted to Rs. 78,000. The assessees had by their return disclosed a gross profit of Rs. 36,858. 10 Modi Ent…

Ravikumar Kamleshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharninath V. S., Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 145Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.497/AHD/2023 (धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Year: 2017-18) Ravikumar Kamleshbhai Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-401, Sidhashilla Apartment, Ward-5(2)(1), Vasna Barej Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380007 PAN: CLFPS6694L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.R. Revenue by : Shri C. Dharninath V. S., Sr. D.R. सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/03/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 03/04/2024 आदेश/O R D…

DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4372/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Bajaj Auto Limited V. Dcit – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Range – 3(1) V. M/S. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6Th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan : Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar Department Represented By : Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited v. DCIT – Range – 3(1) Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400021 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT – Range – 3(1) v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited Room No. 623, 6th Floor Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN : AAACB3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Ms. Vasanti Patel& Shri Kirit Kamdar…

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4236/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2001-2002

Section 143(4)(b)Section 234Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)Section 40

Elinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1011/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmielinjippurath Velayudhan Kochumon The Income Tax Officer -2(2) Elinjipurath House Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mannuty, Thrissur 680651 Shakthanthampuran Nagar [Pan:Asnpk4343B] Thrissur 680001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dileep Balachandran, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…d, can only go by the material on record in determining the validity or otherwise of the order under challenge before it. The order of assessment, where found reasonable and valid, is to adopted and confirmed. As explained in CIT v. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) in the context of the Tribunal, the second appellate and the final fact finding authority under the Act, in failing to record reasons where it agrees fully with the view expressed by the Appellate Commissioner and has no other ground to record in support of its conclusion, it does not act illegally or irregularly merely because it does not re…

Sanjay Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 44/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.MonishaChourdhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 3Section 44A

…e of books of accounts of trading of bullions and jewellery so debited in the profit and loss account could not be justified, where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied and relied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pillaih and Sonce (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) and CIT vs. Surjit Singh Mahesh Kumar (1994) 210 ITR 83 (All H.C.) , wherein it was held that “where books of account are rejected or not produced, then AO may compute the profits by applying a flat rate of a certain percentage to the admitted or estimated turnover 6 Sanjay Kumar Jain vs. ACIT or gross receipts.” And made addition of Rs. 15,…

Five Starconstruction Company, Bhilai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Bhilai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 45/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Five Star Construction Company Plot No.96-97, Light Industrial Area, Chawani Chowk, Bhilai (C.G)-490026 Pan : Aaaff4316L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ing into consideration the business conditions of the assessee and compare it from the profits disclosed by the assessee in the similar line of businesses. In this connection, reference can be made to the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons, 63 ITR 411 (SC); (ii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 108 ITR 424 (Cal.); (iii) Badrinath Agarwal vs. CIT, 65 ITR 242 (All.); and, (iv) Shri Venkteshwar Sugar Mills vs. CIT, 341 ITR 588 (All.). 13. It is also settled position of law that the Assessing Officer cannot rely on the same books of accounts which are rejected for the purpose of making any…

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd., Indore

ITA 1358/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…is discretion and dgment judicially and reasonably.[emphasis supplied] Page 11 of 16 Shakti Pumps (India ) Ltd. Assessment years 2010-11 a) Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. [1938] 6 ITR 36 (PC) b) McMillan & Co. [1958] 33 ITR 182 (SC) c) KY Pilliah & Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) 2.41 Jurisdictional Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench dealt with similar disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC on a charge that assessee might have incurred other expenses than debited in P&L, in the case of Bhaskar Trading Corporation [2007] 91TJ 141 wherein at Para 17.9 it was held:- “The Ld. CITIA) though reduce the deduction u/s 80HHC of the IT Act…

ACIT (Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holdings & Investment Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2023AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit (Ltu-1) V. Bajaj Holdings Investment Ltd 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor World Trade Centre Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 96/Mum/2002 [Arising Out Of Ita No.5030/Mum/2001 (A.Y: 1997-98)] Bhajaj Auto Limited V. Acit (Ltu-1) Bhajaj Bhavan 29Th, Floor, Centre-1 Nariman Point World Trade Centre Mumbai - 400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400075 Pan: Aaacb3370K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Percy Pardiwala& Ms. Vasanti Patel Department Represented By : Shri Rahul Kumar & Shri Vranda U Matkarri

Section 2(24)Section 35DSection 37(2)Section 80H

Indrani Prasad, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 400/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Indrani Prasad Vs. A.C.I.T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Aanpi5216K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having The Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) For The A.Y 2013-14 On 29- 11-2013, Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,51,75,720/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted In The Case Of M/S Goldstone Infratech Ltd & Its Other Associated Companies On 09.11.2017. The Assessee Was One Of The Persons Whose Residential Premises Were Covered U/S 132 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 153A Of Page 1 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 45Section 50C

…nsideration. Any prior or subsequent document therein to, oral as well as unregistered one ought to be taken as superseded by the foregoing registered transfer document in issue. We there quote hon'ble apex court's yet another decision CIT K.Y.Pilliah (1967) [63 ITR 411| (SC) to express our concurrence With the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion under challenge. The assessee’s strong endeavor to rely on the foregoing litigation (supra) as well as evidence deserves to be declined in light of his Page 4 of 6 ITA 400 of 2022 Indrani Prasad registered sale deed dt.20-04-2O09. We accordingly uphold the Impugned long term…

DCIT- CC- 5(3), Mumbai vs. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-5(3) बिधम/ M/S. Irb Jaipur Deoli Tollway Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Air India Building, Irb Complex, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai- Village, Andheri, East, 400021. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacci1724Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Dhanalaxmi Iyyar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 53, Mumbai Dated 03.06.2021. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Of Rs.4,70,67,196/- Which Was Added By The Ao U/S 56 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & MsFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 56

…re, we fully agree with the view expressed by the Ld. CIT(A) and so we do not give any other reason for upholding the same, and for taking such a course, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Y. Pilliah and Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10/11/2022. (B. R. BASKARAN) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 10/11/2022. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) आदेश की…

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

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

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)

Section 145(3)Section 68

…irmed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be faulted since we completely agree with the reasoning given by AO to have rejected the books. So no separate reasons of our own are not given (refer Hon’ble Supreme Court order in CIT Banglore Vs. K. Y. Pilliah and Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411). Therefore, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s (CO) fails. 9. However on appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted the contention of the assessee that the Net Profit (NP) cannot be estimated on both purchases as well as sale; and that it should be either on purchase or sale. Therefore, he directed the AO to estimate the net profit only on sale based on the…

Srinath Reddy Nalla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1233/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Srinath Reddy Nalla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R/O.Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Pan : Aagpn8178E. Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) – 6, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. Ita 1233/Hyd/2019

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 50

…438 (Bom): 4. Awadesh Pratap Sing Abdul Rahman & Bros. Vs CIT [1994] 76 Taxman106 [All) 5. Champalal Chowdary Vs DCIT [2012154 SOT 398(Jaipur —Trib). 6. CIT Vs Bhawan & Path Nirman (Bohra & Co) [2002]258 ITR 676 (Raj). 7. CIT Vs K. Y. Pillaiah & Sons (19671 63 ITR 411(SC). 7.27 The facts and circumstances involved in this case are similar to that of case laws quoted above. In view of this, the ratio laid down in the case laws is squarely applicable to the case on hand. At this juncture, it is important to note that though the assessee has claimed to have maintained the books of account and got its accounts aud…