CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

95 TTJ 71Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#13081 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asundry creditorssection 44a

Judgments citing CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ecause of this distinction, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when the purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed." xiii) 95 TTJ 71 (Del) Annamaria Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 67 SOT 52 (Mum) DCIT v Rajeev G. Kalathil xiv) 167 ITD 621 (Mum) M/s. Fancy Wear vs ITO., 6.But,we will like to decide the issue on merits also. The AO or the FAA have not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee nor have doubted the purchases made by it. The recognised principles of acco…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ecause of this distinction, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when the purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed." xiii) 95 TTJ 71 (Del) Annamaria Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 67 SOT 52 (Mum) DCIT v Rajeev G. Kalathil xiv) 167 ITD 621 (Mum) M/s. Fancy Wear vs ITO., 6.But,we will like to decide the issue on merits also. The AO or the FAA have not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee nor have doubted the purchases made by it. The recognised principles of acco…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ecause of this distinction, a liability for purchase which has been credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when the purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed." xiii) 95 TTJ 71 (Del) Annamaria Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 67 SOT 52 (Mum) DCIT v Rajeev G. Kalathil xiv) 167 ITD 621 (Mum) M/s. Fancy Wear vs ITO., 6.But,we will like to decide the issue on merits also. The AO or the FAA have not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee nor have doubted the purchases made by it. The recognised principles of acco…

NEOGENETICS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 361/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Level 14 & 15, Concorde Towers, Ub City, 1 Circle - 3(1)(1), Vittal Malya Road, Ub City, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aadcn 7689 L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

…y creditors as these represents figures of purchases. Therefore, provisions of section 68 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. In support of the same, the following decisions were relied upon:  Annamaria Travels & Tours (P) Ltd vs Dy CIT [(2005) 95 TTJ 71 (Delhi) (Pg 1038-1040 of Paper Book II)  IKEA Trading (India) (P.) Ltd vs DCIT, Circle 11(1), New Delhi [2021] 123 taxmann.com 129 (Delhi - Trib.) (Pg 1044 – 1045 of Paper Book II)  CIT, Agra vs Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 156 TAXMAN 507 (ALL.) (Pg 1048 – 1050 of Paper Book II) The learned DR relied on the order of the AO. 23. We have carefully con…

M/S. FROLIC REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 364/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…dit outstanding credit liability of such purchase cannot be a treated as unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit – CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) 156 Taxman 507 (All); Annamaria Travels & Tours (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 95 TTJ 71 (Del); Manoj Agarwal v. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB) Even otherwise, if purchase is considered as non-genuine, genuine, it would be disallowed u/s.69C or trading results would be rejected and profits estimated or unexplained capital investment for making such purchases added u/s.69, hence, in any eventuality, sec.68 may not be applicable. • I…

M/S. ASPIRANT MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 363/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…dit outstanding credit liability of such purchase cannot be a treated as unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit – CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) 156 Taxman 507 (All); Annamaria Travels & Tours (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 95 TTJ 71 (Del); Manoj Agarwal v. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB) Even otherwise, if purchase is considered as non-genuine, genuine, it would be disallowed u/s.69C or trading results would be rejected and profits estimated or unexplained capital investment for making such purchases added u/s.69, hence, in any eventuality, sec.68 may not be applicable. • I…

M/S. AVOCADO TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(3), INDORE

In the result, these three appeals of by different assessees in ITANo

ITA 362/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble I Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Avocado Trading Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company, Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4206K Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aspirant Mercantile Company Private Ito 3(3) Limited Indore बनाम/ G.J. Shah & Company,Chartered Vs. Accountants 404, Manas Bhawan, 11 Rnt Marg, Indore-452001 (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J

Section 143(3)Section 68

…dit outstanding credit liability of such purchase cannot be a treated as unexplained cash credit unexplained cash credit – CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) 156 Taxman 507 (All); Annamaria Travels & Tours (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2005) 95 TTJ 71 (Del); Manoj Agarwal v. DCIT (2008) 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB) Even otherwise, if purchase is considered as non-genuine, genuine, it would be disallowed u/s.69C or trading results would be rejected and profits estimated or unexplained capital investment for making such purchases added u/s.69, hence, in any eventuality, sec.68 may not be applicable. • I…

ACIT 21(2), MUMBAI vs. AMAR PLASTICS, MUMBAI

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

ITA 8110/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8810/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit 21(2) M/S. Amar Plastics बनाम/ Room No.508, C-10, 21, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 5Th Floor, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kalpataru Point, Mumbai - 400051 Kamanji Marg, Sion(East) Mumbai - 400022 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfa2724J

For Appellant: Ms. Mrugakshi JoshiFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Naik
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…y and not contingent or disputed liability. The above view is submitted by the ratio of the decisions in the case of Saurashtra Cements and Chemical Industries Ltd. 213 ITR 523(Guj.), Sterlite A.Y. 2007-08 Industries 6 SOT 497(MUM), Annarnaria & Tours P.Ltd. 95 TTJ 71, Swadeshi Cotton and Flor Mills 53 ITR 14(SC), Ashok Iron & Steal Coal Mills 199 ITR 815 (Allah.)., Padmavati Raje Cotton Mills 203 ITR 375(Cal.) relied by the appellant. Even otherwise by not claiming such expenditure in earlier years the assessee has not derived any benefit because by not claiming such expenses in those years rather it has paid m…

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (2006) CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (95 TTJ 71) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax