CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah

120 ITR 294High Court1979#4857 most cited
24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 68Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 269SSSection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbesection 264asection 2(9)section 256(1)section 66section 256section 106onus of proofsection 155section 44adsundry creditorssection 269

Judgments citing CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…ily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable - Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…explained, and business income estimated by\nbin after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable-Held, yes. The\nrelevant part of the judgement is as under:-\n\"10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah\n[1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income\nof the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain\nsundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said\nunexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income\nof which was determined on estimate basis. But wher…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 750/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 cuke Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. K-14B Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 3277 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 740/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2021-22 cuke DCIT A…

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

…rily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CII v. Maduri Rajalahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

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

…rily explained, and business income estimated by him after rejecting books of account of assessee as unreliable Held, yes. The relevant part of the judgement is as under:- "10. It may be mentioned that in the case of CII v. Maduri Rajalahgari Kistaiah [1979] 120 ITR 294 (AP), it was observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined on estimate basis. But where th…

M/S SATWANT AGRO ENGINEERS,BHAWANIGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PATIALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: VIRTUAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 753/Chd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 M/s Satwant Agro Engineers बनाम The DCIT Sangrur Road, Bhawanigarh, Central Circle Punjab-148026 Patiala "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AANFS9148Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Deepak Anand, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Dhar…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 489/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…ce the same. As the assessee failed to explained these criteria, we have no hesitation in confirming the action of the CIT(A). For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah (120 ITR 294). Further, we Smt. Shobha Gupta place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) wherein held that on rejection of books of account, business income estimated, addition towards unexplained cash credit separately valued. 13. Further, the approach of the various High Courts' is…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1514/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkari
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 264ASection 40

…ce the same. As the assessee failed to explained these criteria, we have no hesitation in confirming the action of the CIT(A). For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah (120 ITR 294). Further, we Smt. Shobha Gupta place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) wherein held that on rejection of books of account, business income estimated, addition towards unexplained cash credit separately valued. 13. Further, the approach of the various High Courts' is…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 221/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 220/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 219/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 217/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

MR. GREGORY FRANCIS D'SILVA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 216/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA Nos.216 to 221/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2012-13 to 2017-18 DCIT, Mr. Gregory Francis D’Silva, Vs. Central Circle – 1, 13-12-130/24 and 25, Albuquerque House, 1st Floor, Inland Ornate Navabharath Circle, Opp. Forum Mall, Kodialbail, Pandeshwar, Mangaluru – 575 003. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN : AFTPD 9610 D ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sheetal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department. Date of hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…ce the same. As the assessee failed to explained these criteria, we have no hesitation in confirming the action of the CIT(A). For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgement of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari Kistaiah (120 ITR 294). Further, we Smt. Shobha Gupta ==================== place reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad (72 ITR 194) wherein held that on rejection of books of account, business income estimated, addition towards unexplained cash credit separately valued. 13. Further, the approach of the v…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2