CIT v. M.K. Brothers

163 ITR 249High Court1987#318 most cited

What is CIT v. M.K. Brothers authority for?

Mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in books and made through banking channels. Once the assessee furnishes relevant documentation, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to prove the transaction is not genuine.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M.K. Brothers · M.K. Brothers · Section 69C · Section 68 · Income Tax Act 1961 · genuineness of purchases · unexplained expenditure · burden of proof · non-production of party · banking channels · assessment procedure

Also reported as

30 Taxmann 547

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 69CSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

Issues it is cited on

unexplained expendituresection 69cgenuineness of the transactionsection 131section 133(6)section 69section 132previous yearsection 13personsection 148section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. M.K. Brothers

R SURESH & CO,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6515/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Rashesh ShahFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…9 (Bom.) 2. PCIT vs. Siyaram Metals Udyog Pvt. Ltd. - 156 taxmann.com 132 (Guj.) 3. CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 372 ITR 619 (Bom.) 4. ACIT vs. Vardhman Exports - Tax Appeal No. 265 of 2008 (Guj.) 9 R Suresh & Co. 5. CIT vs. M.K. Brothers - 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) 6. CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics - Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010(Guj) 7. ACIT vs. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Tax Appeal No. 997 of 2008(Guj) 8. M/s. Simoni Gems vs. DCIT - ITA 747/MUM/2018 (Mum. Trib.) 9. Sai Diamonds vs. ACIT - ITA 3165/MUM/2023 (Mum. Trib.) 10. Sai Diamonds vs. ACIT - ITA 6452/MUM/2024 (Mum. Trib.) 8. Takin…

SATISH SAWARMAL SARAF,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\npartly allowed

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 250Section 69A

…{ "clean_text": "1\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 5540/Mum/2025\nA.Ys: 2018-19\nSatish Sawarmal Saraf\n601, Bharti Enclave Opp\nGreen Off Link Road,\nMalad (W), Mumbai\n400064.\nPAN – AAGPS5830G\n(Appellant)\nVs\nACIT, CC – 4(3)\nKautilya Bhawan,\nBKC, Mumbai – 400051.\n(Respondent)\nAssessee by Shri Virag Shah\nRevenue by Shri Sourabh S. Agrawal, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n06.11.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n13.11.2025\nORDER\nPER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:\nThis appeal has been filed by the assess…

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 703/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…alleged bogus purchase 40.31% Difference in GP % 7.57% 8.7 The AR of the assessee placed reliance on following case laws in support of his contentions/claims: (a) CIT Vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil appeal no. 9604- 9605 of 2018, (b) CIT vs M K Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj), (c) PCIT, Surat -1 Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (SLP (Civil) Diary, No.12670/2018, (d) M/s. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Gujarat HC) Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010 [2013], (e) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poy Fab (Pvt) Ltd. Tax appeal no. 63 of 2012, (f) CIT vs. Smith P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451, (g) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs ITO (Mumbai ITAT…

LEXUS SOFTMAC,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 702/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.702 & 703/Srt/2024 Ays: (2014-15 &2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Lexus Softmac, Deputy Commissioner Of F -3 To F-6, Gujarat Hira Bourse, Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), बनाम/ Gems & Jewellery Park, Surat Room No.108, Vs. Ichchhapore, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat - 394510 Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabfl 0495 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Deven K Kapadia, C.A. राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…alleged bogus purchase 40.31% Difference in GP % 7.57% 8.7 The AR of the assessee placed reliance on following case laws in support of his contentions/claims: (a) CIT Vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Civil appeal no. 9604- 9605 of 2018, (b) CIT vs M K Bros (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj), (c) PCIT, Surat -1 Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (SLP (Civil) Diary, No.12670/2018, (d) M/s. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Gujarat HC) Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010 [2013], (e) CIT Vs. Bholanath Poy Fab (Pvt) Ltd. Tax appeal no. 63 of 2012, (f) CIT vs. Smith P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451, (g) Shri Rupesh Chimanlal Savla Vs ITO (Mumbai ITAT…

SMT. REETA GOEL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 4258/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…fore the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.)Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.)Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt.CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.)Ltd. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.3.3 Though, the appellant was not able to produce the concerned party before the Assessing Officer, f…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. REETA GOEL, MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 4094/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…fore the AO, one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the assessee. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.)Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Bom.), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.)Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 ITR 249 (Guj.), Asstt.CIT v. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.)Ltd. Dy. CIT v. Adinath Industries [2001] 252 ITR 476 (Guj.), CIT v. Precious Jewels Corpn.17 taxmann.com 264 (Raj.), CIT v. Rajesh P. Soni [Tax Appeal No. 1107 of 2006, dated 27-2-2012.]. 4.3.3 Though, the appellant was not able to produce the concerned party before the Assessing Officer, f…

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…or the purchase has been made by assessee out of its bank account. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly concluded that provision of section 69C of the Act will not apply to the case on hand" 17. Further the reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs M.K Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Gu)). CIT V Nangalia Fabrics Tax Appeal No. 689 of 2010(Guj) and ACIT vs Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt Ltd Tax Appeal No 997 of 2008 (Guj.) 18. It is to be noted that the cross examination of Shahrukh Khan Pathan was denied on the fact that he has never filed ITR and he is not registered on e-filing portal However, it is to be noted that th…

ANITA LAHU GHADGE,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE41(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee fail and the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2623/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaranita Lahu Ghadge, V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Swapnapurti, 33-D, Kamgar Income Tax, Circle – 26(1), बनाम Chs Ltd., S.G. Barve Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Near Nandkeshwar Mandir, Kurla Complex, Bandra Kamgar Nagar, Kurla East, (East), Mumbai – 400051, Mumbai–400024, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Afqpg3328A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Nikam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)

…Given that the payment has been properly accounted for and made through banking channels, the disallowance by the Ld. A.O. may kindly be reconsidered. In support of this contention, the appellant places reliance on the decision of CIT v. M.K. Brothers [1987] 163 ITR 249 (Guj HC), wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that mere non-production of a party or their denial of a transaction is insufficient to treat a payment as non-genuine if it is duly recorded in the books of accounts and made through legitimate banking channels. The court further emphasized that once the assessee furnishes relevant documentat…

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

ITA 61/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…erification of records and the addition made thereon are liable to be deleted. Moreover, both the authorities below failed to make enquiries as were required in the matter. 10. Further reliance is placed by the assessee in the case of CIT -Vs.- M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 206 (Guj.) and various other decisions. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that when purchases were supported by bills, entries made in books of I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 10 Patel Kenwood Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO account and payments made by cheque, sa…

PATEL KENWOOD PRIVATE LIMITED,ANKLESHWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VADODARA

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

ITA 60/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…erification of records and the addition made thereon are liable to be deleted. Moreover, both the authorities below failed to make enquiries as were required in the matter. 10. Further reliance is placed by the assessee in the case of CIT -Vs.- M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 40 Taxmann.com 206 (Guj.) and various other decisions. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that when purchases were supported by bills, entries made in books of I.T.A Nos. 60 & 61/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 Page No 10 Patel Kenwood Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO account and payments made by cheque, sa…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Sa…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Sa…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Sa…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-408 of JPB-II) x) 148 TTJ 517 (Hyd) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Sa…

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

…vestment to the satisfaction of the taxing authorities, the authorities would be justified in treating the same as unexplained investment under section 69. Akberally Esufally vs. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 563 (Mad), CIT vs. M.K. Bros. (1986) 52 CTR (Guj) 228 : (1987) 163 ITR 249 (Guj). The Calcutta High Court in Mihir Chatterjee vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Cal) 26 : (1994) 205 ITR 270 (Cal) held that where the facts on record clearly established that the explanations offered by the assessee as regards investment in house property are not based on truth, inclusion of the same in assessee's income would be justified. The Bomba…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Precious Jewels Corporation Ltd.” (supra) it was held that on the one hand, the assessee had…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Precious Jewels Corporation Ltd.” (supra) it was held that on the one hand, the assessee had…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Precious Jewels Corporation Ltd.” (supra) it was held that on the one hand, the assessee had…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SUNIL MITTAL HUF , SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 520/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.520/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Sunil Mittal Huf, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamhs7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.520/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) The ITO, Vs. Sunil Mittal HUF, Ward – 1(3)(1), 101, Mahadev Park, Kailash Nagar, Surat Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMHS7185Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Appellant by Shri Kiran K. Shah, CA Respondent by Date of Hearing 15/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 21/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Y…

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…re the Sales tax department. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has taken note of the fact that no sales could be effected without purchases. He has further placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249). He has further relied upon the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Premanand (2008)(25 SOT 11)(Jodh), wherein it has been held that where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where…

Showing 1–20 of 262 · Page 1 of 14

...
CIT v. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) — Cited in 262 Judgments | BharatTax