CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd.

217 ITR 4High Court1996#3794 most cited

What is CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The High Court upholds the Assessing Officer's addition of unsecured loans when the assessee provides confirmation of accounts and informs of company name changes, with transactions conducted through banking channels.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. · 217 ITR 4 · unsecured loan · Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. · confirmation of accounts · change of name · banking channel · AO addition

Sections most often in play

Section 10A(a)Section 10B(1)Section 10B(e)Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Issues it is cited on

related party transactionddttransactional net margin methodarms length pricesection 92bcup methodsection 144c(5)childmost appropriate methodrule of consistencysection 34arm's length price

Judgments citing CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd.

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar\nEstate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah\n[2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable\ncause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings\nfor the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year\nwhen the assessee star…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati), CIT v. Shiv Sagar\nEstate [2002] 257 ITR 59 (SC) and Union of India v. Satish Pannalal Shah\n[2001] 249 ITR 221 (SC). In our opinion, there was no good and justifiable\ncause to take a different view and conclude in the assessment proceedings\nfor the year under consideration that the AY 1996-97 was the first year\nwhen the assessee star…

OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4777/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…, [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori)\n5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad)\n6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361\n(Bom) (FB)\n7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR\n323 (Guj)\n8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau)\nIn the context of the dispute whether the share transactions\nresulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of\nconsistency has been applied in the following two decisions of\nthe Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal:\n(Gopal Purohit vs.Jt. CIT/2009/20 DTR 99(Mumbai Trib.)\nJanak S. Rangwala vs. ACIT/2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mumbai)\nFollowing the…

M/S. OCEANIC MARKETING AGENCIES INDIA LTD.,,DELHI vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA No. 4542/Mum/2025 is dismissed as\nwithdrawn and ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2008-09

…, [1981/128/ITR 610(Ori)\n5. M.A. Namazie Endowment vs. CIT / 1988/174 ITR 58 (Mad)\n6. CIT vs. Shree Nirmal Commercial Ltd./1994/213 ITR 361\n(Bom) (FB)\n7. Turaben Ramanbhal Patel & Anr. Vs. ITO [1995] 215 ITR\n323 (Guj)\n8. Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT/1996/217 ITR 4 (Gau)\n\nIn the context of the dispute whether the share transactions resulted in trading profit or capital gains, the rule of consistency has been applied in the following two decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal:\n(Gopal Purohit vs.Jt. CIT/2009/20 DTR 99(Mumbai Trib.)\nJanak S. Rangwala vs. ACIT/2007] 11 SOT 627 (Mumbai)\n\nFollowing the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI vs. URBAINIA SPACES PVT. LTD., MANDAWALI, DELHI

ITA 2012/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…'ble Courts of law given hereunder:- i. Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed copy of A/c of this party and had also informed the AO…

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…s of the accounts has not been challenged by ld AO, the accounts\nare relevant prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under\nsection 34 of the Evidence Act – TolaramDaga v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 632\n(Assam); DhansiramAgarwalla v. CIT [1996] 217 ITR 4 (Gau.)\nc. 5. The Ld. AO failed to examine and considered the books of accounts\nproduced during the course of assessment proceeding and rejected the same\nby solely relying of the statement recorded. Though the assessee was not\nliable to maintain the books of account as he was not carrying out any\nbusiness in his own capacity, however he prepar…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…f accounts. In such a scenario, the LD. AO cannot rely on diaries to make additions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the rulings of the Assam High Court (‘HC’) in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632) and that of the Gauhati HC in Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT (217 ITR 4). xxvii. Without prejudice to the above, ‘books of accounts’ are defined to include ledgers, day-books, cash books, account books and other books, whether kept in the written form or in electronic form or in digital form or as print-outs of data stored in such electronic form or in digital form or in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electr…

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…f accounts. In such a scenario, the LD. AO cannot rely on diaries to make additions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the rulings of the Assam High Court (‘HC’) in Tolaram Daga v. CIT (59 ITR 632) and that of the Gauhati HC in Dhansiram Agarwalla v. CIT (217 ITR 4). xxvii. Without prejudice to the above, ‘books of accounts’ are defined to include ledgers, day-books, cash books, account books and other books, whether kept in the written form or in Page 24 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 electronic form or in digital form or in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of electro-magnetic data storage device…

SUDESH KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GHAZIABAD

ITA 2012/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Urbainia Spaces Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle 13, Flat No.19, Ground Floor, Prop. No. Delhi. 01, Pardhan Complex, Main Road, Mandawali, Delhi-1100 92 Pan :Aabcu6277D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…'ble Courts of law given hereunder:- i. Sumati Dayal V CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 Taxman 89 (SC) ii. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Limited V CIT(2003) 263 ITR 289(Cal HC) ii. iii. Tola Ram Daga V CIT (1966) 59 ITR 632 (Assam) iv. Dhansi Ram Agarwala V CIT (1966) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) v. Khandelwal Constructions V CIT 227 ITR 900(Gau) 5.3.1 I have considered the facts of case and the submissions filed by the appellant. The assessing officer has made addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan from Sagarika Sea Craft Ltd. The appellant had filed confirmed copy of A/c of this party and had also informed the AO…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 346/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

…on the following decisions: I. Radhasoami Satsang v Commissioner of Income Tax 193ITR 321 (Supreme Court) II. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kotrika Ramaswamy Chetty 64 ITR 388 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) III. DhansiramAgarwalla vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati High Court) IV. Sardar Kehar Singh v Commissioner of Income Tax 195 ITR 769 (Rajasthan High Court) V. The Panel is not convinced as any change in facts and circumstances of the case militates against the doctrine of consistency. The law in this regard was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang, thus: "9. We are awa…

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1451/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma CIT (DR ) and Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 92B

…on the following decisions: I. Radhasoami Satsang v Commissioner of Income Tax 193ITR 321 (Supreme Court) II. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kotrika Ramaswamy Chetty 64 ITR 388 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) III. DhansiramAgarwalla vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati High Court) IV. Sardar Kehar Singh v Commissioner of Income Tax 195 ITR 769 (Rajasthan High Court) V. The Panel is not convinced as any change in facts and circumstances of the case militates against the doctrine of consistency. The law in this regard was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang, thus: "9. We are awa…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 534/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…e disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the additio…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 533/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…e disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the additio…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 375/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…e disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the additio…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 374/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…e disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the additio…

BRIDGE & BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 10(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 2116/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 144

…e disturbed as held in following case:- i. Arihant Builders v/s. ITAT (2005) 277 ITR 239 (MP) ii. ACIT v/s. Gendala Hazarilal& Co. (2003) 263 ITR 679 (MP) iii. CIT v/s. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Delhi) iv. Dhansiram Agarwalia v/s. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 4 (Gau) Bridge & Building Construction Co. P. Ltd. AYs: 2012-13 to 2014-15 v. CIT v/s. Shiv Sagar Estate (2002) 257 ITR 59 (SC) vi. UOI v/s. SatishPannalal Shah (2001) 249 ITR 221 (SC) vii. CIT v/s. Paul Brothers (1995) 216 ITR 548 (Bom. - Nag.) Looking to nature of business and accepted past record we are requested before Hon’ble Bench, the additio…

SHRI KHANCHAND D. DODEJA,AKOLA vs. I.T.O. WARD -1, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 335/NAG/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 May 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri C.J. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

…been made by the authorities below. The ld. AR in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions : i. CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar, 263 ITR 610 (MP); ii. CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); iii. G.N. Mohan Raju Vs. I.T.O., 217 ITR 4 (Gauhati); iv. Prabhudas Jagjiwandas Vs. I.T.O., 55 ITR 1 (Guj.). 4. On the other hand Shri R.K. Baral representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not co-operate with Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings and failed to comply with the notices u/s. 148 of the Act. The asse…

MANUGRAPH INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 338/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S. Manugraph India Limited Asst. Cit-3(2)(1) Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Sidhwa House, N. A. Sawant Marg, Vs. Colaba, Mumbai-400 005 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 7246 H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi : Shri V. Jenardhan Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2018 : 04.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Shri Pranay Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

…sment cannot be changed without reasons in view of the principle of consistency and accordingly, no disallowance is warranted in the instant year: • Radha Saomi Satsang v CIT (193 ITR 321). • CIT v Berger Paints (266 ITR 99 (SC)) • DhansiRam Aggarwalla v CIT (217 ITR 4 (Gau)) • CIT V Shree Ram Memorial Foundation (158 ITR 3 (Del)) • CIT v Neo poly Pack (245 ITR 492 (Del)) • UDI v Kuomidini Narayan Dalal and Another (249 ITR 219 (SC)) • UOl v Satish Panna Lal Shah (249 ITR 221 (SC)) • CIT v J.K. Charitable Trust (308 ITR 161 (SC)) • Racold Thermo Limited (ITA No.1454/PN/2010) dated 11 September 2015 • Affinity Ex…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…a material change in facts and circumstances of the case, the revenue authority will not depart from its previous decisions at their own sweet will. This principle was upheld by Gauhati High Court in case of Dhansiram Agarwalla v Commissioner of Income Tax (217 ITR 4), where it was held that: " .. having upheld in identical circumstances and accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee, consistency demanded and dictated that the ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 Tribunal should not have rejected the explanation for the subsequent year which has been rejected simply because the secon…

DR. HARVINDER SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is alloweci

ITA 5746/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg. [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra; Adv-
Section 68

…sessee by applying provisions of section 145(3) of i.T. Act. Relying on the following case laws, the Id. AR contended that in the absence of such a finding, no addition towards the trading results could legally be made as held in the following case laws: 217 ITR 4. Dhansi Ram Aggarwal Vs. CIT (Gauhati H.C.), in which it was held as under: “Where the'genuineness and regularity of the accounts have not been challenged, the account; are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof u/s (34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (see page . 8F,G).” 76 ITR 365, St. Teresa Oil Mills Vs. State of Kerala (Kerala…

Showing 1–20 of 31 · Page 1 of 2

CIT v. Neo Poly Pack Pvt. Ltd. (217 ITR 4) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax