CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao

370 ITR 212High Court2015#4588 most cited

What is CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao authority for?

A firm is not required to explain the source of income of its partners concerning their capital contribution to the firm. Such contributions form the substratum of the firm's business and cannot be added to the firm's income.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao · Section 68 · capital contribution · partners capital · firm's income · unexplained cash credit · source of income · substratum of business · preponderance of probability

Also reported as

57 Taxmann.com 373

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 68Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)joint development agreementjdasection 158bbsection 31preponderance of probabilitystatement under section 132(4)section 153c(1)block periodsection 69b

Judgments citing CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao

NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 930/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 234Section 250Section 68

…nd held that there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee firm on account of capital contribution by its partners. The tribunal further held that:- "Similarly, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP), In the case of ITO v. Gowthami Builders in ITA Nos. 314/Viz/2016 & 392/Viz/2017 & ors dated 14.03.2018, the Visakhapatnam Bench of ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court is reproduced as under:- "Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the amoun…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HIMATNAGAR, HIMATNAGAR vs. NEW SURROAD GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY, IDAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed, whereas, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.930/Ahd/2024 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.924/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18) 1. New Surroad Ginning & 1. The Ito बनाम/ Pressing Factory Ward-2, V/S. At Post Surroad Himatnagar 383 001 Tal: Idar Himatnagar – 383 430 Dist. Sabarkantha 2. The Ito 2. New Surroad Ginning & Ward-1, Himatnagar Pressing Factory Himatnagar – 383 430 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfn 5184 C (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 234Section 250Section 68

…nd held that there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee firm on account of capital contribution by its partners. The tribunal further held that:- "Similarly, by following the decision in the case of CIT v. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP), In the case of ITO v. Gowthami Builders in ITA Nos. 314/Viz/2016 & 392/Viz/2017 & ors dated 14.03.2018, the Visakhapatnam Bench of ITAT has decided the issue against the Revenue. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court is reproduced as under:- "Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the amoun…

ITO., WARD 14(1), HYDERABAD vs. JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 672/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.672/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Ward 14(1), R/o.Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAQFJ8777P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) and आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1055/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Joshit…

G K CONSTRUCTIONS.CO,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1608/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. Vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aapfg7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1608/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 G K Constructions Co. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 050. vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. PAN AAPFG7527F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee by: CA C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue by: G Saratha, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT : Th…

JOSHITA INFRA DEVELOPERS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-14(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.672/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Joshita Infra Developers LLP, Ward 14(1), R/o.Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAQFJ8777P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) and आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1055/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Joshit…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, INCOME TAX vs. A A INTERNATIONAL, GHATKOPAR (W)

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3459/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(2)Section 68

…is not required to explain the source of income of partners regarding the contribution made by them towards the capital of the firm. The Hon'ble Telangana High Court had relied on another decision in the case of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao, reported in (2015) 370 ITR 212. The ld. CIT(A) has also relied on various precedents by observing as under: - ITA No. 3459/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 6 A. A. International ITA No. 3459/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 7 A. A. International ITA No. 3459/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2017-18 8 A. A. International 5.3. There is nothing on record by the revenue to counter the above observations or to dis…

FIVE STAR IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JPR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 20/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalfive Star Impex, F-939, Road No. 14R, Vki Area, Jaipur 302021 Pan No.:Aabff2606A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. B. Natani, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 144Section 145Section 250Section 250(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Five Star Impex, F-939, Road No. 14R, VKI Area, Jaipur 302021 PAN No.:AABFF2606A ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2), Jaipur ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. S. B. Natani, C.A, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 12/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 23.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act,…

JAYBHOLE COLD STORAGE,ARAVALI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 152/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.152/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jaybhole Cold Storage, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Survey No. 742/744, Dehgam Income Tax-1, Bayad Road, Village Chhapariya, Ahmedabad Post: Vasani-Rel, Taluka Bayad, Dist: Aravali-383325 [PAN No.AALFJ9918M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.151/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shreeji Cold Storage, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Survey No. 742/7, Dehgam Bayad Income Tax-1, Road, Village Chhapariya…

SHREEJI COLD STORAGE,ARAVALI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 151/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.152/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Jaybhole Cold Storage, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Survey No. 742/744, Dehgam Income Tax-1, Bayad Road, Village Chhapariya, Ahmedabad Post: Vasani-Rel, Taluka Bayad, Dist: Aravali-383325 [PAN No.AALFJ9918M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T.A. No.151/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shreeji Cold Storage, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Survey No. 742/7, Dehgam Bayad Income Tax-1, Road, Village Chhapariya…

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hands of the assessee. This view is duly supported by the following judgements: a) Judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewell (291 ITR 232) b) Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 8.2 PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself do…

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 414/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hands of the assessee. This view is duly supported by the following judgements: a) Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewell (291 ITR 232) b) Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself do…

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 175/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hands of the assessee. This view is duly supported by the following judgements: a) Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewell (291 ITR 232) b) Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself do…

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hands of the assessee. This view is duly supported by the following judgements: a) Judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewell (291 ITR 232) b) Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of 8.2 PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself do…

TABESCO HINDUSTAN INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., ,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

ITA 167/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…hands of the assessee. This view is duly supported by the following judgements: a) Judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Taj Borewell (291 ITR 232) b) Judgement of TS & AP High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M. Venkateswara Rao & Others (370 ITR 212) (TS & AP HC) c) Judgement of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Metal & Metals of India (208 CTR 457) (P&H) d) CIT Vs. Keval Krishna & Partners (18 DTR 121) 8.2 We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure Private Limited, 397 ITR 82 has held that statement under section 132(4) in the itself do…

ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI vs. J H JEWELLERS LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 The DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/s. J H Jewellers LLP, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 PAN AACFJ 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, CA Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order CIT(A)-30, New Delhi dated 25…

DARSHIT DEVELOPERS ,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 471/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…REFOILS AND SOLVEX IN Tax Appeal No.846 of 2017 order dated 28-11-2017 iii) Madras High Court: in the case of CIT vs. Taj Borewell [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad) iv) Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court: in the case of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao and other [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP) v) Punjab & Haryana High Court: in CIT vs. Metal and Metals of India (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High Court” Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [2001] 245 ITR 160 (MP)…

ACIT, CIRCLE-51(1), NEW DELHI vs. AMBIKA ENTERPRISES , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by Revenue stand, dismissed

ITA 31/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 68

…ILS AND SOLVEX in Tax Appeal No. 846 of 2017 order dated 28.11.2017 iii) Madaras High Court :- in the case of CIT vs. Taj Borewell [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad) iv) Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court:- in the case of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao and others [2015]370 ITR 212 (T& AP) v) Punjab & Haryana High Court:- in CIT vs. Metal and Metals of India (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High court:- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [200] 245 ITR 160 (MP…

M/S CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,JAMMU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 93/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 93/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Continental Construction Vs. DCIT-1, Company Jammu. H.N. 52, Sector-4.Trikuta Nagar, Jammu (Respondent) [PAN:-AADFC7299Q] (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. P.N.Arora, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.06.2023 20.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assesseewas filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,…

M/S CENTRAL INDIA MINERALS,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 168/NAG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

…to the capital account of the assessee firm’s partner Smt. Kusum N. Daga. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as a catena of case law i.e., Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs., CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (Alld.); CIT vs., M.Venkateswara Rao & Others [2015] 370 ITR 212 [T & A.P]; CIT vs., Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) and PCIT vs., Vaishnodevi Refoils and Stuff Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj.) has unanimously settled the issue that such an addition involving partner’s capital account of a firm has to be made in the partner’s hands than that of the concerned Firm. We, thus, delete both these ident…

M/S CENTRAL INDIA MINERALS,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 167/NAG/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Nov 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, D.R
Section 144Section 153CSection 292CSection 68

…to the capital account of the assessee firm’s partner Smt. Kusum N. Daga. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments as a catena of case law i.e., Abhyudaya Pharmaceuticals vs., CIT [2013] 350 ITR 358 (Alld.); CIT vs., M.Venkateswara Rao & Others [2015] 370 ITR 212 [T & A.P]; CIT vs., Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) and PCIT vs., Vaishnodevi Refoils and Stuff Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Guj.) has unanimously settled the issue that such an addition involving partner’s capital account of a firm has to be made in the partner’s hands than that of the concerned Firm. We, thus, delete both these ident…

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2