How many judgments cite CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain?

55 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain (205 CTR 444), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 250, Section 133(6), Section 143(2).

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

205 CTR 444High Court2006#2111 most cited

What is CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain authority for?

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding trade creditors, especially when the genuineness of the purchases is accepted by the department.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain · Section 68 · trade creditors · purchases on credit · sundry creditors · cash credit addition · genuineness of purchases · Section 145(3) · creditworthiness · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

156 Taxmann 507

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 115BBE Section 131

Issues it is cited on

trade creditors section 44af section 262 sundry creditors inadequate enquiry creditworthiness of the creditor addition under section 68 revision u/s 263 non application of mind lack of enquiry section 263(1)rejection of books of account

Judgments citing CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, VII, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

…puted. As such the amount of credit was not reflecting against any loans and advances from the parties. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High court in case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain reported in 156 Taxman 507/205 CTR 444, where it was held as under: The Tribunal had recorded a categorical finding of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidence on record that the said amounts represented the purchases made by the assessee on credit and, therefore, the provisions of section 68 could not be attracted in the instant case. The view taken by the Tribunal was c…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

M/S. Asian Agency, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

ACIT, Range-I, Lucknow vs. Shri Yogesh Mulwani, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 446/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow01 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 The Asstt. Cit V. Shri Yogesh Mulwani Range 1 36, Cantonment Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahnpm4669B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Respondent By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 06 2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A

Section 133(6)

…nly when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee and the assessee is not able to explain the nature and source of such credit. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on the following case laws: 1. ‘CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain’, 205 CTR 444 (Alld.) 2. ‘CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Tewari’, 220 Taxman 141 (Alld.) Page 6 of 8 3. ‘CIT vs. Swastik Roadlines (P.) Ltd.’, 36 taxmann.com 441 (Agra Trib.) 4. ‘Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO’, 97 taxmann.com 303 (Delhi Trib.) 5. ‘PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd.’, 115 taxmann.com 333 (Bombay) 6. We have heard the parties and have gone through th…

The Panopat Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1109/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…1 (Supreme Court) (ii) Tin Box Co. vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 9SC) (iii) Ester Industries Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Delhi High Court) (v) CIT vs Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 205 CTR 444 (Allahabad High Court) (vi) Anna Maria Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA 2165/Del/2003 (Delhi -Tribunal) [(2005) 95 ITJ Delhi 71]. Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos.1108 and 1109 /Del/2018 The Panipat Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT (C) The Ld. Departmental Representative (“DR” for short) relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. C…

The Panopat Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle, Panipat

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1108/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. Natioanl E- Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 804/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2016-17 Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. National E-Assessment 1St Floor, Elegance Tower, Centre, Plot No.8, Non Heirarchial New Delhi. Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. Pan: Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, Advocate Ms Bhavya Garg, Ca & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th April, 2021 Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3)/144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The It Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Amway Corporation Engaged In The Business Of Direct Selling Of Consumer Products. It Sells Its Products Through Multi-Level Marketing (Mlm). Mlm Marketing Allows Direct Sellers To Build A Business Through Their Own Sales Efforts & Inviting Others To Become Direct Sellers. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.11.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.113,69,23,009/-. Since The Assessee Had Entered Into Certain International Transactions With Its Ae, The Ao Referred The Matter To The Tpo For Determination Of The Alp Of The International Transaction Entered Into By It.

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. National E-Assessment 1st Floor, Elegance Tower, Centre, Plot No.8, Non Heirarchial New Delhi. Commercial Centre, Jasola Vihar, New Delhi – 110 025. PAN: AAACA5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Kumar Garg, Advocate Ms Bhavya Garg, CA & Shri Prince Bansal, CA Revenue by : Shri Surender Pal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 08.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 ORDER…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.361/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Neogenetics Foods Private Limited, Vs. DCIT, Level 14 and 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, Vice…

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ndry creditors under section 68 of the Act particularly when the trading results are accepted by the learned Assessing Officer as well as by the Learned PCIT. In support, he relied on following decisions: 1. ITA No. 325/2008(del) CIT Vs Ritu Anurag Agarwal 2. 205 CTR 444 (all) CIT Vs PanchamDass Jain 6 4.6 The learned Counsel referred to the submissions made before the Learned PCIT. Regarding the discrepancy in audit report, he submitted before the Learned PCIT that return of income was revised due to change in depreciation and some figures in original balance-sheet were mentioned erroneously under wrong heads,…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Genesis Crop Sciences (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey

Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AACCG 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue by: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date of hearing: 17/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 03/05/2021 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM.: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad in appeal No. 10021/CIT(A)-9/Hyd/2017-18, dated…

Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal, Valsad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 3224/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [Pan: Aavpa 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…Page 1 of 14 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawal Vs. ITO, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi /ITA No.3224/AHD/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Hon'ble JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Hon'ble ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Court-Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3224/AHD/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Purnima Sunil Agrawala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 902, Orchid Tower, Vapi Ward-2, Vapi. Chharwada Road, Vapi Dist. Valsad-396195. [PAN: AAVPA 0055 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.Gopalakrishnan – AR…

ITO, Ward- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4282/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ward-6(1), B-108, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2853J Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 4282/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/s Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ward-6(1), B-108, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACC2853J Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 04.02.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of ld.…

Kishan Motors, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.169 & 371/CTK/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Kishan Motors, Plot No.56/A, Vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Bhubaneswar. Sahara Complex, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAGFK 7438 J (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri J.K.Lenka, DR Date of Hearing : 06/12/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM ITA No.169/CTK/2018 is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A),2, Bhubaneswar dat…

Ipsita Naik, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed

ITA 678/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shaantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 68

…the IT Act. Referring to various decisions, he submitted that the provisions of section 68 cannot be attracted in case of outstanding sundry creditors. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pancham Dass Jain, 205 CTR 444, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the provisions of section 68 cannot be attracted to the outstanding sundry creditors being purchases made by the assessee on credit where the department has accepted the purchases, sales as also the trading results disclosed by the assessee. 9. Referring to the decision…

M/S. Sardhana Papers (P) Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 4110/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sardhana Papers (P) Ltd., Vs ACIT, Opp. Power Station, Circle-2, Meerut Road, Sardhana, Meerut. Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AABCS9548K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampath, Advocate & Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27th June, 2016 of the CIT(A),…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cairo International, New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 556/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Cairo International, Central Circle-18, X-355, Lane No. 8 Room No. 102, Ara Centre, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Jhandewalan Extn. Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 031 Pan Aadfc3693A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Cairo International, Central Circle-18, X-355, Lane No. 8 Room No. 102, ARA Centre, Mohalla Ram Nagar, Jhandewalan Extn. Gandhi Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi - 110 031 PAN AADFC3693A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri I.P. Bansal, Advocate Shri Vivek Bansal, Advocate Department by : Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 30/07/2019 Date of 18/10/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is pr…

Income-Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Swati Housing & Construction (P) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1228/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S. Swati Housing & Ward 22(4), Room No. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225C, C.R. Building, C-3/258, Janak Puri, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 058 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Vs. M/s. Swati Housing & Ward 22(4), Room No. Construction Pvt. Ltd., 225C, C.R. Building, C-3/258, Janak Puri, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR & Ms. Sweta Bansal, CA Date of Hearing 20/08/2019 Date of 23/08/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the revenue against impugned order dat…

R.S. Tradelink Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/AHD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No’S.1288 & 1289/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07 R.S.Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C/O.Bombay Way Bridge, Magdalla Income Tax, Port Road, Magdalla, Surat. Circle-4, Surat. [Pan: Aabcr 6607 A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr

Section 144

…R.S.Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Surat /ITA No.1288 & 1289/AHD/2013 : A.Y.2006-07 Page 1 of 15 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No’s.1288 & 1289/AHD/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2006-07 R.S.Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of C/o.Bombay Way Bridge, Magdalla Income Tax, Port Road, Magdalla, Surat. Circle-4, Surat. [PAN: AABCR 6607 A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA राज"व क" ओ…