CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

159 ITR 71Supreme Court of India1986#764 most cited

What is CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The burden of proving an understatement of consideration or the receipt of 'on-money' lies solely with the Revenue, which must provide cogent evidence of actual receipt of higher consideration, beyond mere estimates or suspicion. Additions cannot be made based on assumptions like differences from circle rates without such evidence.

133

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. · 159 ITR 71 · burden of proof Revenue · understatement of consideration · on-money receipt · evidence of higher price · section 52(2) · section 69B · capital gains · circle rate difference · K.P. Varghese principle

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 69BSection 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132(4)Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 52(2)section 7(1)section 75voluntary admissionsection 52abatement of assessmentcircle ratethird party informationon money receiptsection 69bsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd.

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…document. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson Co Ltd(1967) 66 ITR 622(SC), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407(SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), CIT V. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC ), wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Guls…

M/S Landbase India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 138/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…document. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson Co Ltd(1967) 66 ITR 622(SC), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407(SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), CIT V. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC ), wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Guls…

Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 653/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…document. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson Co Ltd(1967) 66 ITR 622(SC), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407(SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), CIT V. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC ), wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Guls…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is allowed

ITA 4849/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32(1)

…document. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in CIT v. George Henderson Co Ltd(1967) 66 ITR 622(SC), CIT v. Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co (1973) 87 ITR 407(SC), K.P. Varghese v. ITO(1981) 131 ITR 597(SC), CIT V. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) and CIT Vs. Godawari Corpn. Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC ), wherein it has been held that unless there is evidence that more than what was stated was received, no higher price or value can be taken to be the basis for computation of capital gains. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in CIT V. Guls…

Shri Narendra Tripathi, Bhopal vs. The DCIT-Central-1, Bhopal

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 300/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…Smt. Seema Tripathi & Narendra Tripathi IT(SS)Nos.101to102/Ind/2017,IT(SS)Nos.115to119/Ind/17&ITA.No.300/Ind/17 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA (SS)No 101 & 102/Ind/2017 Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2011-12 PAN : AWEPT0544J Smt. Seema Tripathi, V/s Deputy Commissioner 12, Parika Grih Nirman Society, of Income Tax, Walmi Road, Bhopal Central-1, Bhopal (Revenue) (Respondent) ITA (SS)No 115 to 119/Ind/2017 & ITA No.300/Ind/2017 Assessment Years 2008-0…

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3462/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…. Difference between the consideration actually received and market value of consideration by itself would not justify invoking the said Section. The aforesaid ratio has been followed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80K/159 ITR 71, which observes that the provision would apply only when there was consideration and which consideration actually received was more than the consideration disclosed or declared. Further, onus was on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the said consideration. Section 52 was not meant to apply to tax capital gains on the basis that the assessee…

Aura Securities Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 986/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, S.R. D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

…. Difference between the consideration actually received and market value of consideration by itself would not justify invoking the said Section. The aforesaid ratio has been followed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 25 Taxman 80K/159 ITR 71, which observes that the provision would apply only when there was consideration and which consideration actually received was more than the consideration disclosed or declared. Further, onus was on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the said consideration. Section 52 was not meant to apply to tax capital gains on the basis that the assessee…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…ent or concealment is on the Revenue. Sub-(2) has no application in the case of an honest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared was subsequently reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P) Ltd {1986} 159 ITR 71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Godauari Corpn.Ltd. {1993} 200 ITR567/68 Taxman 344by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from this case merit mention Section 52(2) of the IT Act, 19…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 25O(4)

…ed in the website. Further learned counsel placed reliance upon several case laws in this regard including the following :- 6 M/s. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd.  Pr. CIT Vs. Smt. Vidhi Agarwal (88 Taxmann.com 306)  CIT Vs. Shivakami Co. P. Ltd. (159 ITR 71)  CIT Vs. B. Arunkumar & Co. (ITA No. 2337 of 2013)  Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT ( 403 ITR 354)  Barjinder Singh Bhatti Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1101/Chd/2014)  Pyare Mohan Mathur HUF Vs. ITO (ITA No. 471/Agra/2009)  Adarsh Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 66/Lkw/2014)  Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT (237 ITR 1)  Jansampark Advertising and M…

Pratap N. Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 5273/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.5273/Mum/2018 A.Y: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimsan &
Section 115JSection 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ITAT in the case of Maruti Impex 2016(5) TMI 104) c. Global Stock 4DTR 172, Mumbai d. Mumbai Bench K G Sharma 133 ITD 112 e. Apex curt in the case of K R Verghis 131 ITR 597 f. Lalchand Bhagat 37 ITR 288 (SC) Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. g. Shiva Kami Co. 159 ITR 71 where their lordship disapproved the system of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicision and surmises. I have gone through the CIT Selam vs. S Khader Khan Son judicial decision wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following findings : "Section 133A of the Income tax Act, 1961 - Survey - Whether section 133A does not empow…

ACIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Umil Share & Stock Broking Limited, Kolkata

ITA 303/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(2) V/S. M/S Usha Martin Ventures Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, Ltd., 24, R.N. Mukherjee Room No.6/15, P-7, Road, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] Kolkat-700069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

….. There was no evidence direct or inferential, nor was there any finding by any income-tax authority that the as indulged in such a practice. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC) We also find support in our view from a Division bench judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B.N.Panda, Dy. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 710.’ Taking a consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell And Co Ltd. (supra) and in terms of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hi…

ACIT/DCIT, Circle - 6(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Usha Martin Ventures Limited, Kolkata

ITA 199/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Acit/Dcit, Circle-6(2) V/S. M/S Usha Martin Ventures Aayakar Bhawan, 6Thfloor, Ltd., 24, R.N. Mukherjee Room No.6/15, P-7, Road, Kolkata-700001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaacu 3843 J] Kolkat-700069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

….. There was no evidence direct or inferential, nor was there any finding by any income-tax authority that the as indulged in such a practice. We are fortified in our view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC) We also find support in our view from a Division bench judgement of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B.N.Panda, Dy. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 710.’ Taking a consistent view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDowell And Co Ltd. (supra) and in terms of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Hi…

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Anup Chawla, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69B

…that to throw the burden of showing that there is no understatement of the consideration on the assessee, would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish a negative. Similar view has been reiterated in CIT v. Shivakami Co. (P.). Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 71 (SC). In this case, their Lordships have laid down that no addition can be made unless there is evidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document was received. In the light of the above decisions, it is manifest that no addition can be made unless the AO proves understatement of consideration with some cogent evidence, apart fr…

M/S. Sai Builders & Developers, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Hq) (Admin) -V, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2332/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2332/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 133ASection 234B

…eriod, without bringing any material on record showing that the assessee has actually received anything more than the consideration recorded in the sale agreement of the flats. Reliance is placed on the following case laws : (a) M/s. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 71 (SC) and Godavari Corporation Ltd. 200 ITR 567 (SC) (b) M.J. Cherian 117 ITR 3712 (Kerala) (c) M/s. Shah Realtors, Thane – ITA No.2656/Mum/2016 3.2 A perusal of chart 1 in Para 6 of the remand report clearly shows that where ever the flats have been sold at higher rates e.g. Flat No. A-05, Flat No. A-19, Flat No. D-09 and Flat No. D-05, no advanc…

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 805/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 & Asst.Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.805/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 AND Asst.Year : 2013-2014 Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1) 2nd Floor, ABS Tower Vadodara. Old Padra Road Vadodara 390 007. PAN : AAACG 6725 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar and Shri Parin Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 12/07/2018 घोषणा…