CIT v. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co.

357 ITR 651High Court2013#4756 most cited
25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 144Section 145(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 2(9)section 66section 106trade creditorsonus of proofsection 155section 269section 269sssundry creditorssurvey under section 133asection 44ad

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co.

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 673/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 672/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 61/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 59/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

ITA 57/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 56/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) [01-08-1968] has held as under:- "There is nothing in law which prevents the Income-tax Officer in an appropriate case in taxing both the cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily e…

ITO, WARD-1(1), MORADABAD vs. M.M.CONSTRUCTION, MORADABAD

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2805/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…me estimated by AO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made u/s 68 and thus, the case of the assessee was covered as per the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co. reported in ITA No.5 of 2008(357 ITR 651). M.M. Construction A.Y. 2014-15 (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) Moradabad be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. (4) The appellant may kindly be allowed to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4 All gro…

M.M.CONSTRUCTION,MORADABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MORADABAD

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…me estimated by AO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made u/s 68 and thus, the case of the assessee was covered as per the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co. reported in ITA No.5 of 2008(357 ITR 651). M.M. Construction A.Y. 2014-15 (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) Moradabad be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. (4) The appellant may kindly be allowed to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4 All gro…

DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. M/S. MITTAL CONSTRUCTION UNIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 3752/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…cash payment was not verifiable. It is also noticed that while sending remand report the AO requested the CIT(A) for not accepting any additionalevidence but no comments has been made on this issue by Ld CIT(A). In case of CIT Vs. G.S.Tiwari [AII. High Court) 357 ITR 651 -AO rejected books of account and estimation of profit was made. It was held that in appropriate case, AO can make addition in both u/s 68 as well as estimate u/s 44AD. It was held that where certain unexplained sundry creditors are found in the books of account, the AO is not prevented from treating the unexplained sundry creditors standing in t…

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Soni, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

…t is income from a source which has already been\ntaxed.\nFurther it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of\nIncome-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014]\n220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad)(30-05-2013]\nthat (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that\nassessee had not maintained proper books of account - He thus rejected book\nresults and estimated net gritate of 8 per cent under section 44AD-Assessing Offer\nalso made certain addition under section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit-\…

CHALLENGE COMMODITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…me estimated by AO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made u/s 68 and thus, the case of the assessee was covered as per the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co. reported in ITA No.5 of 2008(357 ITR 651). M.M. Construction A.Y. 2014-15 (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) Moradabad be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. (4) The appellant may kindly be allowed to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4 All gro…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…it is income from a source which has already been taxed. Further, it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad)[30-05-2013) that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68 in respect of unexplained cash credit C…

RG TECHNOLOGIS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 20(2), DELHI

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

…me estimated by AO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made u/s 68 and thus, the case of the assessee was covered as per the ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s G.S.Tiwari and Co. reported in ITA No.5 of 2008(357 ITR 651). M.M. Construction A.Y. 2014-15 (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) Moradabad be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. (4) The appellant may kindly be allowed to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 4 All gro…

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…it is income from a source which has already been taxed. Further it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad)[30-05-2013] that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68 in respec…

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…it is income from a source which has already been taxed. Further it is held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad)[30-05-2013] that (headnote extract) In course of assessment, Assessing Officer noted that Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT assessee had not maintained proper books of account He thus rejected book results and estimated net profit rate of 8 per cent under section 44AD Assessing Officer also made certain addition under section 68 in respec…

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Garg (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68Section 69C

…Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC)(01- 08-1968] and by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax-l v. G.S. Tiwari & Co. [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (Mag.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 (Allahabad) [30-05-2013]. Respectfully following the judgements of honourable Supreme Court and judgements as referred above which have been rendered following judgements of the honourable Supreme Court, it is held that the assessing officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of account of the business, and at the same time estimate the…

ASHA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 157/NAG/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)– 3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Income Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.15,02,106/- Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only contention 14. of department is that the assesee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported sale register, which were already submitted by the assessee during…

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only 14. contention of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported sale register, which were already submitted by the 14 ITA No.155/N…

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 155/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…kala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); 13 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only contention 14. of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported sale register, which were already submitted by the assessee during…

SHRI ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 154/NAG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8/6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 4Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

…n.com 385 (Delhi/ [2014) 363 ITR 195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; 14. The Learned Counsel for the assessee has already argued that the contention of department is that the assessee has shown abnormal amount of profit and not supported with bills and voucher but in the case of the assessee the income has been shown U/s. 44AD of the Act and supported sale register and the details of sales were already submitted…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2