CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

361 ITR 220High Court2014#233 most cited

What is CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. authority for?

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

328

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. · Section 68 · creditworthiness of creditor · share application money · share capital · bank statement as proof · financial strength of investor · unexplained cash credit · addition under section 68

Also reported as

248 CTR 3319 Taxmann.com 2668 DTR 38

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 68Section 143(3)Section 148Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

share capital and share premiumsource of sourcepaper companycreditworthiness of the creditorsection 31live linksection 251(2)share application moneyaddition u/s 68section 251(1)(a)entry operatoradmission of additional evidence

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.

Damodar Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 515/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that, on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was not valid. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. &Ors. (2012) 68 DTR 38 (Del) (HC) Where the AO acted mechanically on the information supplied by the Directorate of the IT (Inv.) about the alleged bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies, without applying his own mind, he was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 147. S.P Agarwalla alias Sukhdeo Prasad AgarwallaVs.ITO 104 ITR 1040 (Kol…

Merta Oil Mills Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 516/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief that, on the basis of the material which he had before him, income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was not valid. CIT vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. &Ors. (2012) 68 DTR 38 (Del) (HC) Where the AO acted mechanically on the information supplied by the Directorate of the IT (Inv.) about the alleged bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/companies, without applying his own mind, he was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 147. S.P Agarwalla alias Sukhdeo Prasad AgarwallaVs.ITO 104 ITR 1040 (Kol…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ 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: 2009-10 M/s Saigal Sea Trade, CIT-18, J.V. House, 02nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAAFS6920K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/05/2018 सुनवाई…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCM0102D Assessee by : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the d…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 ITA No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AADCM0102D Assessee by : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue by : Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the d…

Pnn Steel Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 5(2), Chennai

ITA 2601/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2601/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: 12.02.2018
Section 131(1)Section 68

…n the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd., reported in 399 ITR 425 (Mad) as also the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s.Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 220 (Delhi)(HC) reported in 361 ITR 220. 4. The Ld.AR also filed a petition for admission of additional documents, wherein, it has been submitted that at the time of hearing, the assessee had filed only the Board Resolutions, share application and fund flow statement and bank statements. It was a submission that now, the assessee has downloaded v…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…3296 of 2010, dated 10-1-2011] (para 8), xv. CIT v. Sanchati Projects (P.) Ltd. [ITAT No. 140 of 2011] (para 8), xvi. CIT v. Samir Bio-Tech. (P.) Ltd. [2010] 325 ITR 294 (Delhi) (para 8), 10 Startech Engineers xvii. CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 220/[2012] 206 Taxman 254/19 taxmann.com 26 (Delhi) (para 8), xviii. CIT v. Dwarkadhish Capital (P.) Ltd. [2011] 330 ITR 298/[2010] 194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xix. CIT v. Kinetic Capital Finance Ltd. [2013] 354 ITR 296/[2011] 202 Taxman 548/14 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi) (paras 9, 10), xx. Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT [2013] 214 Taxman 440/30 taxman…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Alladi Drilling Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 916/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Alladi Drilling Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 915/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Alladi Drilling Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 914/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Alladi Drilling Equipment Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 913/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

Alladi Drilling Equipments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. JCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 884/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

Alladi Drilling Equipments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. JCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 883/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

Alladi Drilling Equipments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. JCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 882/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

Alladi Drilling Equipments P. Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. JCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed and all the Cross-Objections are dismissed

ITA 881/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Talluri Rajendra Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, DR

…Thus, the assessments were completed by the AO and raised the demands. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeals and submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax. Even though assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd., [248 CTR 33] (Delhi) that mere demand of duty under another law cannot be the ground to include the same in assessment under the I.T. Act, assessee mainly submitted that entire turnover cannot be brought to tax and only income can be brought to tax and relied on various case law as stated in paras 6 & 7 of the written submissions before the CIT(A). Accepting…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…