What is CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. authority for?

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.?

408 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418 ITR 315), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153C, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 69, Section 147.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418 ITR 315)

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…f third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, we find that the purchases made from various parties directly by the Assessee, which are…

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…f third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, we find that the purchases made from various parties directly by the Assessee, which are…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4584/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…hri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4582/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K Shivram Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4581/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…f third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, we find that the purchases made from various parties directly by the Assessee, which are…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…f third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, we find that the purchases made from various parties directly by the Assessee, which are…

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…f third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, we find that the purchases made from various parties directly by the Assessee, which are…

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4112/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4111/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4110/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the AO has not made any addition in any of the other years once the AO alleged that purchase…

ITO 5(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mokxa Diamond Private Limited, Surat

ITA 2030/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A). The Ld.Cit(A), After Considering The Submission Of The Assesse Passed An Order In Favour Of The Assesse & Deleted The Addition. Being Aggrieved, The Revenue Filed An Appeal Before Us. 4. The Ld. Dr Vehemently Argued & Filed A Written Submission Which Is Reproduced As Below:-

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…diamonds in respect of their transportation and delivery. In respect of facts of the case reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi Vs. Odeon Builder Pvt. Limited as reported in (2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC) wherein it has been opined by the Apex Court that: “Where assessee had submitted purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and VAT registration of sellers as also their Income Tax Return and payment was made through cheques, impugned purchases could not be disallowed.” 8 ITA 2030/Mum/2024 Mokxa Diamond Pvt Ltd submit…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections

ITA 993/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चण्डीगढ़ न्यायपीठ, चण्डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.992 & 993/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Village - Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7203R अपीलार्थी/Appellant & प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent C.O. Nos.46 & 45/CHD/2024 IN आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos.992 & 993/CHD/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Yea…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The DCIT, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/CHD/2024 IN आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18…

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…n independent evidence is necessary as to trustworthiness of those entries which is a requirement to fasten the liability." iv) That reliance may also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd.' (2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC), wherein it has been held that the disallowance cannot made on the basis of the third party information gathered by investigation wing of the department, which have not been independently subjected to further verification by the AO and thus, no material was brought on record to corroborate the statement of the third party and more further, w…

Bthina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy v. DCIT – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [PAN: ABXPB1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Ap…

Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 288/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy v. DCIT – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [PAN: ABXPB1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Ap…

Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Veeravalli Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [Pan: Abxpb1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िीरिल्ली दुर्ाा राि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VEERAVALLI DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.287, 288 & 289/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20) Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy v. DCIT – Central Circle -1 C.R. Building, Kannavari Thota Plot No. 7, Santhi Nagar Guntur – 522001, Andhra Pradesh Nellore - 524003 [PAN: ABXPB1094K] (अपीलार्थी/ Ap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Vrindavan Builders Private Limited, Pathanamthitta

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 736/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…independent enquiry/investigation by the Ld. A.Onot permissible reliance placed on PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, reported in 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del HC); Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 60 DTR (Del) 60; CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC) etc. It is further submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is bad in law for the reasons that the AO has failed to provide the reasons recorded u/s. 147 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 147 of the Act. Further it is submitted that the A.O had failed to provide the Assessee with copy of the satisfaction sheet whe…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Vrindavan Builders Private Limited, Pathanamthitta

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 735/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

…independent enquiry/investigation by the Ld. A.Onot permissible reliance placed on PCIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, reported in 82 taxmann.com 300 (Del HC); Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 60 DTR (Del) 60; CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC) etc. It is further submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO is bad in law for the reasons that the AO has failed to provide the reasons recorded u/s. 147 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s. 147 of the Act. Further it is submitted that the A.O had failed to provide the Assessee with copy of the satisfaction sheet whe…

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

What is CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jagdishkumar M Gupta, Mumbai

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITO 5(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Mokxa Diamond Private Limited, Surat

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Faridkot

Rishi Agarwal, Guwahati vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Guwahati

Bthina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

Bathina Kumara Swamy Reddy, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Vrindavan Builders Private Limited, Pathanamthitta

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam vs. Vrindavan Builders Private Limited, Pathanamthitta