CIT v. U.K. Shah

90 ITR 396High Court1973#2354 most cited

What is CIT v. U.K. Shah authority for?

An amount cannot be treated as unexplained income in the hands of an assessee if it is found to belong to another person, even if the department is free to reopen that other person's individual assessments.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. U.K. Shah · 90 ITR 396 · Section 69A · Section 68 · unexplained income · cash credit · income not belonging to assessee · income of another person · re-opening assessment · individual assessments · assessment procedure · taxing in wrong hands

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 68

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 193section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 158b(b)section 65bsection 65

Judgments citing CIT v. U.K. Shah

M/S Rajdeep Marketing Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7969/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…and that the conclusion in the above case is important. He submitted that in the given case, the Assessing Officer and ADIT (Inv.) did empty formalities merely to complete the assessment. Further he relied on the following cases:– i) CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396. (Bom. HC) iii) CIT v/s Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 330 ITR 298 (Del.) 23 M/s. Rajdeep Marketing P. Ltd. 11. With regard to lapse of time, he submitted that the Assessing Officer has verified the transaction only after lapse of eight years of the transaction and in that process he relied on S. Hastimal v/s CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad…

M/S Kundali Jewel (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO - 12(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3511/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3511/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer 12 Pvt. Ltd. (3)(1) Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Thakur Village, Kandivali Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. (E), Mumbai. Marg, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 4337/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer 12 बिधम/ M/S. Kundali Jewels (India) (3)(1) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No.147 A, 1St Floor, 1/1705, Challenger Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Thakur Village, Kandivali Marg, Mumbai-400020. (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Pnek10340B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm) The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.3511/Mum/2019 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32Section 40

…ng Pvt Ltd), 3 Rangoli Commerce Pvt. Ltd., 4] Kavya Shares and Securities 13 4337/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Pvt. Ltd. & 5) Arawali Stock braking Pvt. Ltd. The AR also submitted and referred that, in the case of CIT V/s. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. 90 ITR 396 (Bom.)). the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that once credible material is produced before the AO, the AO is expected to make efforts to dislodge the explanation given by the assessee. No such thing has been done by the AO. The AO cannot simply reject explanation/materials produced by the assessee without bringing any contrary findings on…

Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/JPR/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1503/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Vishnu Prasad, D.C.I.T. Vs. Namdev Export, Circle-7, Opp.-Dhanopia Textiles, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aappp 9225 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Made By A.O. U/S 68 Alleging Cash Deposits In Bank Account As Undisclosed Income. 1.1 That, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Ignoring The Submission Of Assessee That The Said Amount Represented Sale Consideration Received By Assessee For Sale Of Land.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.CIT)
Section 68

…t in the case of assessee. In this regard it is further submitted that, it is a settled position of law that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed-CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) Based on above, it is submitted that, the cash deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- appearing in the bank statement, also stands fully explained and substantiated, and thus prays that the addition so made may kindly be deleted.” 13. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 14. We have considered the rival c…

Shri Farsuram Ratilal Bhamwala, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1935/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R
Section 234BSection 274Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member And Shri O.P. Meena, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2009-10 Shri Farsuram Ratilal The ITO, Bhamwala, 3, Pritam Ward-1, Society-2, Kasak, Vs Bharuch-392001 Bharuch-392001 (Respondent) PAN: ADFPB0662F (Appellant) Revenue by: Ms. Anupma Singla, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.R. Date of hearing : 04-02-2020 Date of pronouncement : 14-02-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER : SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- The brief fact of the case are that assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration o…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3741/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5266/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5265/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5264/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3746/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3745/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…n Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360, Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electronics 329 ITR 271 and Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT vs. U.K. Shah 90 ITR 396. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that since the entire amount is routed through the funds of the assessee through different intermediary parties, therefore, there is no question of payment of any commission @ 2%. Further findings of the A.O. are based on no evidence or material on record and as such, entire additions are liable…

Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

ITA 153/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.153/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Dhanalaxmi Jewellers, Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul Laxmi Bazar, Angul-759122 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aagfd 8791 D (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, Advs. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth/M. Sheth, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 68

…nders, however, on perusal of the assessment order, there is no question of issuance of second summons. In this regard reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that if the parties had received the summons but did not appear, the assessee could not be blamed. However, where the summons was returned with the postal remark ‘not known’ (and ‘not found’), the said is an endorsement of the presupposed that at the specific address furnished by the assessee the a…

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…e Court. 4. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 JTR 493 (Cal HC) 5. Dy CIT V/s Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (CLI]). SLP was also dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 6. Anis Ahmed V/s CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC) 7. CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom. HC) 8. Add. CIT V/s 1-lanuman Agarwal (1984) 151 ITR 150 (Patna HC) 9. Jhaver Bhai Bihar Lal & Co. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR (1985] 154 ITR 591/21 Taxman 238 10. CIT vs. Sahibqanj Electric Cables (P) Ltd. 11978115 ITR 4087 Thus, in view of the above discussion and respectfully following the judicial pronouncement, the addition made by AO on acc…

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpac Filters & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

ITA 6049/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271

…nnot be treated as bogus. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Hon’ble Bombai High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) and Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Jagdamba Trading Company Vs. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 Jodhpur, the assessee has contended before the authorities below that for every sale there has to be corresponding purchases. If sales bills are being accepted then the total purchases amount should be accepted. 10. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT…

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5840/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147

…ted u/s 147 of the Act. . Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and CIT Vs. U M Shah 90 ITR 396 (Bomb.) and Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in Jagdamba Trading Company Vs. ITO (2007) 16 SOT 66 Jodhpur, the assessee submitted that as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, if sales bills are accepted then the total purchases amount should be accepted as for every sale there has to be corresponding purchases. 8. We have heard the rival…