CIT v. Metachem Industries

ACIT Central-2, Indore vs. M/S Mayur Industries, Fatepur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniit(Ss)A No.212/Ind/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Acit, Central-2, M/S. Mayur Industries, Indore Khandwa "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefm 4664 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra, Cit.D.R. Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Assessee By : 19.12.2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Bhopal (M.P.) (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed By The Dcit (Central)-2, Indore (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘A.Y.’) 2018-19 With The Following Ground:

…n the following judicial precedents in support of his contentions: (i) Pr. CIT v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex [2018] 96 taxmann.com 469 (SC) & Pr. CIT-4 v. Vaishnodevi Refoils & Solvex [2018] 89 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (ii) CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (Madhya Pradesh) (iii) CIT v. Jaiswal Motor Finance [1983] 141 ITR 706 (Allahabad) (iv) Narayandas Kedarnath v. CIT [1952] 22 ITR 18 (Bombay) SS 212 of 2021 9 Mayur Ind. (v) CIT Versus Pankaj Dyestuff Industries [Income Tax Reference No. 241 of 1993] (vi) CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Madras) (vii) Deluxe Enterprises v. ITO, Ward-1, S…

Tyhe ITO-4(5), Indore vs. M/S. Urvashi World Wide P. Ltd., Indore

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

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

…s of the transaction and credit worthiness was also proved from copies of Bank statement and audited accounts hence addition made u/s. 68 of the Act by the AO was wholly unjustified. Reliance is placed on following judgments:- a) CIT Vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP). b) CIT vs. Vaibhav Cotton Pvt Ltd (2013) 22 ITJ 547 (MPHC) c) M/s. Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2021) 40 ITJ 101 (Indore Bench) (ITA No. 736, 737 & 773 / IND/2019 order dt. 11.01.2021). Observation of A.O. in the Assessment Order The assessing authority while making addition u/s. 68 of the Act in relation to loans accepted from above…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

…issed". x.) After the historic judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. (supra), much water has flown under the bridge and earlier judgements namely Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254), Metachem Industries (245 ITR 160), CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. (394 ITR 383), CIT vs. Value Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. (307 ITR 334), Lalitha Jewellery Mart Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 425), ACIT vs. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (87 taxmann.com 216) and CIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann.com 58) will have no application in the present case where the partner company i…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-1(1), Bilaspur vs. M/S Omax Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Gadumaria, Raigarh

In the result appeal ITA No

…ARL Infratech Ltd, (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Raj.) 4. Guruprerna Enterprises v. ACIT ITAT No. 255, 256 & 257/Mum/ 2010 5. Pr. CIT v. Softline Creations P. Ltd. 387 ITR 636 (Del) 6. CIT v. Nipuan Auto P. Ltd. 227 Taxman 147 (Delhi)(Mag) 7. CIT v. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) 8. DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 (Guj) 9. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) 10. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. 11. CIT vs Value Capital Services Pvt Ltd., 307 ITR 334 9. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material evidence available on record. 14 & CO No.09/RPR/2018 10. On perusal of the report of the ITO, Ward 6…

Shri Shri Sudhir Kumar Jha, Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg)

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

…tantiate the claim to the assessee was not justified. No question with respect to identity and genuineness of the creditor was 3 raised, only the genuineness of the source was doubted. the AR placed reliance on the following case laws:- In Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (M.P.), it was held that so far as the requirement of proof of credit, an assessee is only required to establish that the amount was given by the creditor. It further held that once the creditor admits having given the amount, there is no further requirement. In the appellant's case, the confirmations filed before the AO prove that the amount was…

The Income Tax Officer -3(4), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S M/S Stock Mandi, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.342/Rpr/2016 Co No.01/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer-3(4), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Stock Mandi, 301A, 2Nd Floor Eskay Plaza, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Adbfs1771L ……""यथ" / Respondent

…01/RPR/2017 dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its order passed in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 22842/2018 dated 09.07.2018]. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP). 18. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we not only principally concur with the view taken by the CIT(Appeals) that no adverse inferences as regards the additions/credits in the capital account of the partners was liable to be drawn in the hands of the assessee firm, but also even otherwise, are of a strong conviction that as the source o…

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…no liability remains with appellant to discharge further to establish transactions with them as genuine one. In this regard, we would like to draw your honour's attention to the decision of Jurisdictional M.P. High Court in case of CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (M.P.) wherein assessee received certain loans and Assessing Officer did not accept the loans as genuine and made the addition. It was held by Hon'ble high Court that "once it is established that the amount has been invested by particular person, responsibility of the assessee is over. The assessee is only to explain that the loan was given by pa…

Prakash Godhwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs Ito-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/S Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(Cg) Pan No. : Aglpg 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.136/RPR/2019 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Prakash Godhwani, Vs ITO-1(2), Raipur Prop. M/s Prakash Agency, Near Girls High School, Neora(CG) PAN No. : AGLPG 2669 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri R.B.Doshi, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR सुनिाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 25…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(4), Surat vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.111/Srt/2017 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. M/S. Mansi Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat. Block No.80, Village. Navi Pardi, Tal: Kamrej, Dist. Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafcm6514M (Revenue)/(Assessee) (Assessee)/(Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2022 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

…officer who after verification/examination can further requisition evidence/details from the assessee. [SK Bothra & Sons HUF Vs. ITO (2011) 203 Taxman 436 (Kol)]. The law of shifting burden has been explained in the case of CIT Vs. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) that if person (creditor) owns the entry, then the burden of the assessee is discharged and it is open for the assessing officer to undertake further investigation with regard to that individual who has deposited the amount. In this legal background and factual matrix of this case, it can be safely concluded that assessee has successfully di…

Smt. Seema Agrawal, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -I, Raigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Rpr/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Seema Agrawal, Vs Ito, Ward-1, Raigarh Sewa Kunj Road, Near Girls College, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan No. : Affpa 4990 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

…y whatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (PN 109 to 112 of PR. relevant finding on PN 112. para 5). iii) DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), SLP dismissed vide 254 ITR (St.) 275 (PN 113 to 115 of PB). iv) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACTT (2008) 1 12 ITD 307 (Ahd.) (PN 1 16 to 129 of PB, relevant finding on PN 123- last 5 lines). v) ACIT vs M/s Sunder Nagar Filing Sta…

M/S Scc Investment, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - I, Raigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

…hatsoever by the AC) and the onus never shifted back to the assessee. In view of this, no addition could have been made. Reliance on: - 4 i) CIT vs Orissa Corporation P. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) (PN 103 to 108 of PB). ii) CIT vs Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) (PN 109 to 112 of PR. relevant finding on PN 112. para 5). iii) DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj.), SLP dismissed vide 254 ITR (St.) 275 (PN 113 to 115 of PB). iv) Claris Lifesciences Ltd. vs ACTT (2008) 1 12 ITD 307 (Ahd.) (PN 1 16 to 129 of PB, relevant finding on PN 123- last 5 lines). v) ACIT vs M/s Sunder Nagar Filing Sta…

Shri Shri Niteshkumar Goyal, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Nitesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Com Con India Net Work Solution Shop No.327 Lal Ganga, Shopping Mall, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aigpg6386B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pandse, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :15.03.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022

…ere furnished to the AO wherein relevant entries were clearly highlighted and hence it was argued that the transactions were made through banking channels. The appellant relied upon the following decisions of the hon'ble Courts: i. CIT vs. Metachem Industries 245 ITR 160 (MP) ii. Nemichand Kothari Vs CIT and another 264 1TR 254 (Gauhati). iii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC). 2.2 I have gone through the grounds of appeal, gone through the submission of the appellant and read the findings of the AO in the order. During the assessment proceedings, the AO requ…

M/S Oref Securities Private Ltd., Mandsaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ, - इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE, INDORE BENCH BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. ITO, Mandsaur. M/s.OREF Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/h. MID India Mandsaur. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR Assessee by : Shri S. S. Solanki, CA सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 17/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMEBR:…

Sunita Agarwal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

…unt of unsecured loan does not have any meaning and relevance. It is a settled law that the assessee cannot be asked to explain whether the cash credit has suffered tax or not. IN this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Metachen 245 ITR 160. Since the case of the assessee was not subjected to audit U/s 44AB of the Act, therefore, threw as no obligation upon her to deduct tax at source. Since the A.O. was aware of the turnover and facts of the case of the immediately preceeding year, thus, did not fasten the assessee with the obligation of tax deduction at source. Thus, in our view,…

M/S.Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Jabalpur

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

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

…irming the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in [1958] 34 ITR 609 (MP)). This is irrespective of whether the credit in the assessee’s books is to the account of a partner or another (Govindarajulu Mudaliar (supra); CIT v. Metachem Inds. [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP); CIT v. Kishorilal Santoshilal [1995] 216 ITR 9 (Raj)). 8.3 I may next consider both the sums credited on the merits of the explanation/s furnished: (a) Rs.80,000/- ( Sh. Asit Dixit) The source of this sum stated to be the savings (capital) of AD, built-up over the period of his service as a sales Manager in a liquor firm, drawing Rs. 10,000…

DCIT 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Indore

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 Dcit-5(1) M/S. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaocs7650K Appellant By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, Ars Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Virtual hearing Assessment Year:2012-13 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Sanverwala Jewellers Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 12, Chhota Sarafa Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAOCS7650K Appellant by Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. DR Respondent by S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Bhavesh Agrawal, ARs Date of Hearing: 22.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 22.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Ass…