How many judgments cite CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd.?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. (285 ITR 435), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 131, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd.

285 ITR 435High Court2006#4662 most cited

What is CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. authority for?

Purchases made by an assessee cannot be treated as bogus if consumption is fully proved, trading results have been accepted all along, and similar purchases from the same parties were accepted in subsequent assessment years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. · 285 ITR 435 · onus of proof · rejection of books of account · bogus purchases · consumption proved · accepted trading results · subsequent assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 131 Section 142(1)Section 41(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

onus of proof cancellation of registration rejection of books of account unexplained expenditure addition under section 68 section 145(3)section 69c cross objection section 145 commissioner (appeals)section 133a section 131

Judgments citing CIT v. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd.

Mody Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai

ITA 3355/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R C Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…240/Mum/2012) (I) ITO vs. Eagle Impex (ITA No.5697/Mum/2010) (m) Madhukant B. Gandhi vs. ITO (ITA No. 1 950/Mum/2009) (n) CIT vs. President Industries [258 ITR 654 (Guj.)] (o) CIT vs. Baichand Ajit Kumar [263 ITR 610 (MP)] (p) CIT vs. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. [285 ITR 435 (P&H)] (q) CIT vs. M. K. Brothers [163 ITR 249 (Guj.)] 5.3 In the appellant's submission, appellant states that appellant had furnished names and addresses of disputed parties, ledger accounts of suppliers, purchase bills, delivery challans, bank statements evidencing payment by account payee cheques, quantity tally and sale bills to justify the…

ITO 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashwin Purshottam Bajaj, Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…(Guj-HC) ii) CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd 355 ITR 290 (Guj-HC) iii) CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj-HC) iv) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumer 263 ITR 610 (MP-HC) v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT 304 ITR 152 (MP-HC) vi) CIT vs. Leaders valves (P) Ltd 285 ITR 435 (P&H-HC) Merely non appearance of suppliers would not conclude the purchase as ingenuine i) CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd 35 Taxmann.com 384 (Bom-HC) In view of the above, a humble prayer is made :-. a) To delete the addition u/s 69C of Rs 1,31,88,227/- or alternatively, b) To adopt the concept of real income and restrict the additio…

Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward- 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

M/S. M.M. Impex, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result I delete these additions and allow this appeal of the assessee

ITA 1186/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyay: 2006-07 Mm Impex Vs. Ito, Ward 20(3) E 10, Cc Colony New Delhi Delhi 110 007 Pan: Aadgm 0316 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.A. Respondent By : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 148Section 151

…ee are bogus and that they admitted that 5% of the sales are genuine without specifying which of the sales are genuine. He relied on the following case laws and submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. (i) CIT vs. Leaders Valves (P) Ltd. 285 ITR 435 (P&H) (ii) Sumesh Agarwal (Delhi ITAT) order dt. 11.9.2015 for A.Y. 2006-07 SMC-2. 4. He further contended that the statements were taken at the back of the assessee and the request for cross examination not provided. He challenged the reopening on the ground that the AO has not applied his mind to the information received from the investigation…

ITO 24(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Bhaskar Tike, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

ITA 5204/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh

Section 145Section 44A

…also. It may also be noted that if purchases were bogus, we would not have been in a position to sell the goods to the third parties. The appellant also. relied on the following case laws:- 1. The CIT Vs. Laders Valves (p) Ltd. (High Court of Punjab & Har.) (285 ITR 435) 2. The CIT Vs. M' K Brothers (163 IT~ 249) (Gujarat high Court) 3. The CI.T Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (159 ITR 78) (SC) 4. Bala]i Textile Industries (p) Ltd. Vs. I.T.O. (49 ITO 177) Bombay 5. Gujrat High Court decision 'in the case of CIT vs. Simit P .Sheth(2013) 356 ITR 451. I have considered the case' laws and appellant's request to adop…