What is CIT v. Maithan International authority for?

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, allowing revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper and adequate inquiry into the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of share application money or other cash credits under Section 68.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Maithan International?

119 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Maithan International (375 ITR 123), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Maithan International come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 143(2), Section 263, Section 68, Section 133A.

CIT v. Maithan International (375 ITR 123)

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chenai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 434/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri. Pankaj Agarwal, Pr. Commissioner of Income- 14, 3rd Floor Moorthy Street, v. tax, Agasthyar Nagar, Kilpauk, Central -1, Chennai – 600 010. Chennai – 600 034. [PAN: AFLPA-1767-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant…

Smt.Rita Agarwal, Chenai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 433/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rita Agarwal, Pr. Commissioner of Income- 18-21, Flat No. 2D, The v. tax, Heritage, 4th Cross Street, Central -1, Ormes Road, Kilpauk , Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 010. [PAN: AAGPR-4368-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क"…

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-20(5), Chennai

In the result, the appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 882/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangala (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Marudhu Pandyan (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा01 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम1। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.882/Chny/2020 (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s.Sanguine Media Limited ITO बनाम Plaza Centre, 4th floor, Suit No.349, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5), / Vs. 129 G.N.Chetty Road, Chennai-600 006. Chennai. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAECS-2217-C (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) : ($%थ# / Respondent) अपीलाथ# की ओरसे/ Appellant b…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…68 of the Act because the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand re…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…68 of the Act because the assessee failed to prove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand re…

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 636/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. C & E Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata (PAN: AACCC 5418 K) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 01.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.12.2022 For the Assessee Shri Srikumar Banerjee, FCA For the Revenue Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, CIT ORDER Per Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 06.02.2018 passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (here…

Adeshwar Flexipack Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 2356/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Adeshwar Flexipack The I.T.O., Ward- Pvt. Ltd. 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad C/o. Shri Ganpatraj C. Vs (Respondent) Salecha, 15-A, Nalanda Society, Near Naranpura Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad-380013 PAN: AAICA 2590C (Appellant) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 19-10-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the Assessee…

Sachin Ramdas Mohite, Satara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM I.T.A. No. 395/PUN/2019 : A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Sachin Ramdas Mohite A/P Khandala, Dist. Satara 415 523 PAN: AMDPM 1310 D : Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Pune Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Respondent by: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of hearing : 04-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 10-10-2022 ORDER PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ; This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises against the Pr. CIT-3’s order No. Pn/Pr.CIT/263/MBR/2017-18/5000 dated 06-03-2018, in pr…

Poddar Finin Cosultancy Pvt.Ltd, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Panvel

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1007/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1007/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 143Section 68

…that amount of loan received by assessee was unexplained income u/s 68 in as much as identity, genuineness, creditworthiness of the transaction is not proved. 6. CIT Vs Maithan International (56 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta)/[2015] Taxman 381 (Calcutta)/[2015] 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta)/[2015] 277 CTR ) - Assessing Officer could not accept genuineness of loan taken by assessee from various creditors merely on basis of their bank statements and letter of confirmations as he was required to examine creditworthiness of said creditors as well. 7. Amtrac Automobiles India Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT (ITA No.2920/Del/09) - Neither bef…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute of Industrial Kalinga Institute of Industrial Vs. CIT (Exemptions), CIT (Exemptions), Technology (KIIT), Plot No.383, Technology (KIIT), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, KIIT KIIT Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAATK 3103 C (Ap…

Shri Rajinder Singh, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Rajinder Singh बनाम Pr. Cit-1 M/S R.S. Traders, Gunj Road Chandigarh Shimla

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT.DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Rajinder Singh बनाम Pr. CIT-1 M/s R.S. Traders, Gunj Road Chandigarh Shimla "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADXPS5836N "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing: 27/07/2022 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश/ORDER Per Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order…

Keshav Saraf, Kolkata vs. PCIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t folder) and also did not confront the assessee with such adverse material for his rebuttal, if any, so that a judicious inference could be drawn. In this context, I refer to the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Maithan international (2015) 375 ITR 123 (Cal), where it heldthat the Assessing Officer, occupying the position of an investigator and adjudicator, cannot discharge his function by perfunctory or inadequate investigation. Such a course is bound to result in erroneous and prejudicial orders. Where the relevant enquiry was not undertaken, as in this case, the order is erroneous and prejud…

Chandrakant Prahladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2621/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2008-09 Chandrakant Prahladbhai Principal CIT-1, Patel, 2254/1, H.M. Room No. 304, C Wing, 3rd Floor, House, Mahurat Pole, Vs Manek Chowk, Pratyaksh Kar Ahmedabad Bhavan, Ambawadi, PAN: AOZPP4246C Ahmedabad-380015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.C. Shah, A.R. & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Mudit Nagpal, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 28-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 20-07-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL,…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN No.ADQPS 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.CIT, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord…

Visa Power Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 829/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/s. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. PAN: AACCV-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By None Appellant/Assessee ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT/Ld.DR Respondent/Department सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 09-06-2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date 13 -06 -2022 of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal of the assess…

M/S Golden Vincom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 143/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…reafter, CIT cannot intervene, is wholly untenable. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, then it would mean obliterating the provisions of section 263 from the statute. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maithan International 277 CTR 65 (Cal) had to consider a case where an assessee obtained loans aggregating to Rs.1.60 crore from six private limited companies ranging between Rs.7 lac to Rs.1.10 crore. These companies had filed their returns with nominal income. The AO mentioned in the assessment order that Inspector was deputed to verify fresh loans received during the year. The…

Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 153ASection 263

…as duly set aside the AO’s order and has restored the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh enquiry which does not require any interference from our part and referred to two case laws in support of his submission: i) CIT Vs. Maithan International (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 283 (Cal); ii) Kumar Rajaram Vs. ITO (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 110 (Chennai. Trib.) 13. In his rejoinder to the Ld. CIT, DR’s submission that no proper enquiry was conducted by the AO (Central Circle) during post search assessment, the Ld. AR drew our attention to page no. 70 to 94 of paper book and brought to our notice that the AO, Central Circ…

CIT v. Maithan International

What is CIT v. Maithan International authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Maithan International

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chenai

Smt.Rita Agarwal, Chenai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-20(5), Chennai

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

Adeshwar Flexipack Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Sachin Ramdas Mohite, Satara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Pune

Poddar Finin Cosultancy Pvt.Ltd, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Panvel

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

Shri Rajinder Singh, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

Keshav Saraf, Kolkata vs. PCIT-15, Kolkata

Chandrakant Prahladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

Visa Power Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 4, Kolkata

M/S Golden Vincom Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

Techno Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.1(2), Kolkata