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.

97

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 132Section 147Section 153ASection 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 148Section 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 35dprohibited by lawretraction of statementcolourable devicestatement under section 132(4)written down valuemlisection 30short term capital gainsblock of assetsshort term capital gainbusiness connection

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

DCIT Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Alpeshkumar C.Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1908/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive in Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. PAN: AEAPP9489G And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1991/AHD/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Alpeshkumar C. Patel, Circle-2(1)(2), Vs. 503, Milestone Building, Ahmedabad. Drive in Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. PAN: AEAPP9…

Sangeeta Basavraj Mangrule, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Aurangabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 706/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 706/PUN/2019 : Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta B. Mangrule Plot No. 64, Mayurban Colony, Shahnoorwadi Darga Road, Aurangabad PAN: AJIPM 9153 H :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 2, Aurangabad : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07-02-2019 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A)- 2/461/2017-18, involving proceedings u/s 143…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Eenadu Television Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 2244/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)

…is order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the findings of CIT (Appeals) in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. K. Y. Pillah & Sons reported as 63 ITR 411 subsequently 15 followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Global Vantedge (P) Ltd., reported as 354 ITR 21 (Del). The Id. DR has not been able to controvert the well reasoned order of the CIT (Appeals) on the issue. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT (Appeals) on the issue are affirmed and this ground of appeal of the Reve…

M/S. Mother Earth Environ Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 276/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Mahesh Kumar L., A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80I

…fact has gone unrebutted from department side. Coupled with this, we also wish to reiterate here that sec.8o IA r.w.s. 8o IA (7) expressly provides for the impugned relief. We therefore quote hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in KV Pillai vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) to express our complete agreement ITA No 888/Hyd/19 AY 2016-17 Dy CIT, Circle 17(1) vs. Delhi MSW Solutions Ltd. Hyd.” 5.1 The Ld. D.R. submitted that various case laws relied by the Ld. A.R. relating to the period prior to the introduction of section 80AC of the Act, which came into effect from 1.4.2006 by Finance Act, 2006. As such, the ab…

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…nrebutted from department side. Coupled with this, we also wish to reiterate here that sec.80 IA r.w.s. 80 IA (7) expressly provides for the impugned relief. We Page 11 of 19 therefore quote hon'ble apex court's landmark decision in IKV Pillai vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) to express our complete agreement with the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion treating the assessee eligible for the impugned relief. Asseessee’s sole substantive grievance to this effect allowed for statistical purposes therefore. The assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.” 3. Both the ld.AR’s take us to the CIT(A)’s detailed discu…

Ismt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2784/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2751 & 2752/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle- 2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacj9917A आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2783 & 2784/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacj9917A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ng 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…

Ismt Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA 2783/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2751 & 2752/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle- 2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacj9917A आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2783 & 2784/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacj9917A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ng 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ismt Limited, Pune

ITA 2752/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2751 & 2752/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle- 2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacj9917A आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2783 & 2784/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacj9917A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ng 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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Ismt Limited, Pune

ITA 2751/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2751 & 2752/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Acit, Central Circle- 2(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaacj9917A आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2783 & 2784/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S. Ismt Limited, 2Nd Floor, Lunkad Towers, Viman Nagar, Pune-411014. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacj9917A बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora Shri Rajendra Agiwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue As Well As By The Assessee Directed Against The Common Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ng 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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(3), Hyderabad vs. Value Pharma Retail(Hyd) Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2056/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Dipak, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…lming genuine payments ought not to be disallowed in light of the restrictive interpretation of rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules which is not self-exhaustive. We therefore quote hon'ble apex court’s yet another landmark decision in CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah (1967) [63 ITR 411] (SC) to express our complete agreement with the CIT(A)’s conclusion deleting the impugned Section 40A(3) disallowance in entirety without delving much deeper in the relevant facts herein. 5. We lastly acknowledge that although the instant lis is being decided after a period of 90 days from the date of hearing as per Rule 34(5) of the IT(AT) Rules…

Dharti Dredging & Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) TDS, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/HYD/2019[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Muzumdar, CIT-D.R
Section 200(1)Section 201(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

…support of the impugned penaly. We find no reason to accept assessee’s stand that there existed a reasonable cause in its failure in remitting the TDS amount in issue. We thus quote hon’ble Apex court’s larger bench decision in CIIT vs KV Pillai & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 to express our complete agreement with the CIT(A)’s detailed reasoning that the Assessing Officer had rightly levied the impugned penalty. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein is declined on account of its failure in proving the corresponding mitigating circumstances qua the impugned penalty. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed.…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed”

ITA 2069/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(viii)

…ne un- rebutted from the Revenue’s side during the course of hearing. We respectfully follow the same to affirm the CIT(A)’s order deleting the impugned disallowance. We also deem it proper to quote Hon'ble apex court’s decision in CIT Vs. K.Y.Pilliah (1967) [63 ITR 411] (SC) that the tribunal need not dig deeper and give its own findings once it has expressed complete agreement with the lower appellate conclusion. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th February, 2021 (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 08-02-2021 TNMM…

DCIT, Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Gaurav Rose Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2396/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(40)Section 68

…ise of the re-opening jurisdiction without satisfying the corresponding embargo, renders the same as not sustainable in the eyes of law. We quote hon'ble apex court’s celebrated decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. K.Y. Pillah And Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC) to affirm the CIT(A)’s action quashing the impugned re-opening in entirety as their lordships made it clear long back that such a course of actors may not involve independent examination of the relevant facts at the tribunal’s behest. The Revenue fails in its sole substantive grievance as well as in the main appeal ITA No.2396/Kol/2019. 5. Le…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Rajmahal Silks

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/81/2011HC Karnataka01 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

…ion. However, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to record reasons when the Tribunal fully agrees with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). [See: ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VS. K.Y.PILLIAH AND SONS’, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)]. The aforesaid principle was referred to approval in ‘PATNAIK AND CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA’, (1986) 161 ITR 365 (SC) and ‘GANAPATHY AND COMPANY VS. THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX BANGALORE’, (2016) 381 ITR 363 (SC). 8. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled principles, the facts of the case in hand…

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)

…opment Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 923 (Ori) • S.N. Namasivayam Chettiar Vs. CIT [1960] 38 ITR 579 (SC) • Bharat Mills Products Vs. CIT (1981) 128 ITR 682 (All) • CIT Vs. McMillan & Co. (1958) 33 ITR 182 (SC) • CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah and Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC) • Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills Vs. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 192 (P&H) • R.B. Bansilal Abirchand Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 260 (Bom) • Bharat Mil Products Vs. CIT 81 ITR 609 (Bom) • Steelworth Ltd. Vs. CIT 69 ITR 36 (Gau) • B.N. Maheshwari Vs. CIT 210 ITR 438 (Bom) 6.9 The A.O. observed that the nature of raw material cons…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 306/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…Engineer India (P) Ltd (supra). Thus, we direct the learned Assessing officer to apply N.P rate of 6% on gross receipts of Rs. 27,72,26,469/-. Ours view finds support from the Judgement of the Hon’ble 11. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs K.Y Pilliah &Sons 63 ITR 411 (S.C) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the following question of law for its judicial consideration: "(1) whether the estimate of the income of the assessee confirmed by the Tribunal rests upon irrelevant considerations and the estimate is not made in accordance with law? The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question of law holding as u…

ACIT Circle-3, Mathura vs. Shobha Ram Sharma Contractor, Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that

ITA 296/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13
Section 144Section 44

…Engineer India (P) Ltd (supra). Thus, we direct the learned Assessing officer to apply N.P rate of 6% on gross receipts of Rs. 27,72,26,469/-. Ours view finds support from the Judgement of the Hon’ble 11. Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs K.Y Pilliah &Sons 63 ITR 411 (S.C) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the following question of law for its judicial consideration: "(1) whether the estimate of the income of the assessee confirmed by the Tribunal rests upon irrelevant considerations and the estimate is not made in accordance with law? The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the question of law holding as u…

DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Merino Panel Products Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…acts which we find are corroborated by documents as noted by him. Therefore, we do not want to again repeat our findings concurring with Ld. CIT(A). For doing so, we rely on the order of Hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). So, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd April, 2019. (Dr. A. L. Saini…

M/S. Merino Panel Products Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2015[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…acts which we find are corroborated by documents as noted by him. Therefore, we do not want to again repeat our findings concurring with Ld. CIT(A). For doing so, we rely on the order of Hon’ble supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Y. Pilliah & Sons (1967) 63 ITR 411, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A). So, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and appeal of assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 3rd April, 2019. (Dr. A. L. Saini…

The DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Mehul T. Desai, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 350/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 145

…cannot be said that suddenly the whole system was devised in the middle of the year. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajnik & Co. 251 !TR 0561 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Y. Pillash & Sons 63 ITR 411. However, the total unaccounted receipts would have to be worked out subtracting the corresponding recorded receipts as discussed in points (i) and (ii) above. Therefore, the total, unrecorded receipts for the year is worked out at Rs. 2,12,91,706/- (Rs. 3,25,55,596/- minus Rs. 46,91,8767- minus Rs. 65,72,014/-). c) The only issue which remains i…