How many judgments cite CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.?

98 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (301 ITR 384), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 147.

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

301 ITR 384High Court2008#1158 most cited

What is CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. authority for?

An addition cannot be made under Section 68 for cash credits if it is established that the credits do not pertain to the impugned assessment year but relate to earlier assessment years.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained loans · credits from earlier years · addition in assessment year · deletion of addition · proof of source · creditworthiness · Income Tax Act 1961

Also reported as

183 Taxmann 277183 Taxmann.com 277

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 1961 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 234B Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 271aab(1a)section 158ba section 158b(b)purposive interpretation section 113 section 158bb(1)addition under section 68 project completion method house property income section 158bd non application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Experion Hospitality Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8775/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148Section 68

…f shares in the present year invoking of provisions of Section 68 is not sustainable. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the learned AR on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 384 (Del.), which is also cited before learned CIT(A). 9. In the light of aforesaid, there is no doubt in the mind of the Bench that the grounds raised by the Revenue have no substance. Findings of learned CIT(A) require no interference. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 20.09.2023. (SHAMIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBE…

The DCIT1(1), Indore vs. Shri Ravi Arora, Indore

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…ed loans in question were from 9 persons in respect of whom the Appellant had filed various documents to discharge the onus on the Appellant. 5.4 The Appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384) for the proposition that no addition can be made u/s 68 in respect of amounts not received during the year. The Hon'ble High Court has held as follows :- “Since it is a finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that this credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessed, does not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumsta…

ACIT CC-18 vs. Neena Hardeep Singh

Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1421/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2023AY 2004-2005

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. Mrs. Neena Hardeep Singh Central Circle-18, L-5, Hauz Khas Enclave, Room No. 327, 3Rd Floor New Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Pan : Aarps4684B Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…l relied following judgments :- “1. ACIT vs. Shri Hardeep Nihal Singh : ITA No. 1422/Del/2008 (Del. Trib.) 2. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE : 52 GST 355(SC) 3. Kishanchad Chellaram v. CIT : 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agriculture Farms Ltd. : 301 ITR 384 (Del.) 5. CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra : 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 6. PCIT v. Jugal Kishore Mahendra Biyani : Tax Appeal No. 1000 of 2018 (Guj.) 7. ACIT v. Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd. : ITA No. 229/Del/2011 (Del.Trib.) 8. CIT v. Fancy International : [2008] 166 Taxman 183 (Del.) 9.CIT v. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. : [2015] 372 ITR 619 (Bom) 10.…

Mesers S R Ingosts Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result Revised Ground no 4 of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.04/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) M/S S R Ingots Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Cc-1, Raipur House No.16, Opp.Cg Gramin Bank, Choubey Colony, Raipur Pan No. :Aaics 5559 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi Jain, Ars राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh & Smt. Surbhi JainFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…pany in the earlier year, the same could not be treated as unexplained cash credit for the year under consideration. To arrive at this conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the following judicial pronouncements: “i. In CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) it was held in para (6) of the order: '(6) Here, the CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 15 lacs mainly on the ground that this credit balance of Rs. 15 lacs is being reflected in the accounts of the assessee over the past four to five years or so and hence this was not a fresh credit entry of the previous year under consideration and…

Tyhe ITO-4(5), Indore vs. M/S. Urvashi World Wide P. Ltd., Indore

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

ITA 569/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri .P.D. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…and the entries in the balance sheet had not be disputed by the Held “That the credit balance in the accounts of the CIT vs Usha Stud asseessee did not pertain to the year under Agricultural Farms (2008) consideration, the Assessing Officer was not justified 301 ITR 384(Delhi). in making the addition u/s. 68 of the Act.” CIT vs. Parmeshwar Held “That the carried forward amount of the previous Bohara (2008) 301 ITR year did not become an investment or cash credit 404 (Raj). generated during relevant year 1993-94. This alone was sufficient to sustain the order of the Tribunal in deleting the amount of Rs. 155316/-…

Naresh Kumar, Bhiwani vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 9028/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9028/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Naresh Kumar Ito H.No. 22638, Ward No. 5, Vs. Ward 2, Vill., Main Chowk Tosham, Bhiwani, Haryana. Bhiwani, Haryana. Pan No. Aenpk5376E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…as on 31.03.2014 and this amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee for the AY 2015-16. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Parmeshwar Bohra [267 ITR 698], CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. [301 ITR 384] (Del.), DCIT vs. Shri Pawan Aggarwal in ITA No. 374/Lkw/2013 dated 23.01.2015. 7. The Ld. Counsel further placing reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deepak Kumar in ITA No. 191/2009 dated 08.03.2010 submits that assessee cannot be put into trouble and suffering on account of mistake committed by…

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…d subjected to addition in the current year. The ld AR placed reliance on the following judgements of the High Courts and Tribunal on this issue. SLN Coffee Curing Works, Kushalnagar Page 6 of 33 i) CIT Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farm Ltd. – Delhi High Court [301 ITR 384] (Extract) : Para 8 :…. “Hence this was not a fresh credit entry of the previous year under consideration and these credit entries were already made and accounted for in the assessment years 1995-96 and 1997- 98 which were introduced in the form of advance against breeding stallions owned by the assessee an d thus these credit entries did not rel…

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

Sln Coffee Curing Works, Kudloor vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)

Section 143(1)

…:- ITO vs. Bhavesh Prints (P) Ltd. 142 TTJ 128. Tamilnadu Ware Housing Corporation 292 ITR 310 . Willson and Co. Ltd. 121 TTJ 258 (Chennai Trib.) Dy CIT vs. Amod Petrochem (P) Ltd. (2008) 217 CTR (Guj.) 401. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. Relying upon the above cited decisions, the ld. A/R has submitted that so long the assessee is showing the liability in the books even if it is time barred, it is neither remission nor cessation of trading liability. Only when the assessee treated the liability a…

A.C.I.T., Circle-26(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Debashis Roy, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 226/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 226/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income, Shri Debashis Roy Circle – 26(1), Kolkata Vill – Vijayganj Bazar Vs P.O. Bhangar 24, Paraganas (South) P.S. Kashipur Pin - 743502 Pan : Aoppr3859H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/R Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/11/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Is Against The Deletion Of An Addition Of Rs. 4,19,07,168/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Added By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act To The Income Of The Assesse On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Received During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

…ts even if unexplained could not be subjected to tax in the subsequent year and to buttress this contention, the ld. A/R relied on the following decisions:- CIT vs. Prameshwar Bohra (2008) 301 ITR 0404 RajHC. CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Limited (208) 301 ITR 384 (Del) 8.1. Further the ld. A/R submitted that addresses of the parties were available in the database of the Income Tax Department and in the event of non-receipt of the notices u/s 133(6) of Act by these suppliers , the Assessing Officer ought to have exercised his powers to trace these assessees and not to add the outstanding balances in the h…

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

…xpenses spent up-to 31st March 09. Therefore, these expenses pertains to period ending 31.03.2009 i.e. relevant to A Y 2009-10 and on this ground itself the addition cannot be made in A.Y 2011-12. 17. In the case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd - [301 ITR 384] - [Delhi High Court] held that since it is a finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A) that this credit balance appearing in the accounts of the assessed, does not pertain to the year under consideration, under these circumstances, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the impugned addition under Section 68 of the Act and as such no fau…

ITO Ward - 14(1), New Delhi vs. Kalyani Finvest Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 8698/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: 12.09.2022

Section 271Section 68

…t Year. The remedy, if any, lies with the revenue in the year in which the credit were actually received and not in the subsequent year as is the case in the present appeal. The issue is no longer res-integra including CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agriculture Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Del) (2009) and settled in favour of the assessee by plethora of decisions. We thus see no infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO towards entries not found credited in the previous year relevant to A.Y.2013- 14 in question. We thus see no warrant to interfere with the first appellate order. 7. In the resu…

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4162/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 4150 & 4162/MUM/2018 (A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15) Income Tax Officer – 2(2)(2) v. M/s. More Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 542, 5th Floor 3rd Floor, Rustom Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Veer Nariman Road Mumbai - 400020 Fort, Mumbai – 400023 PAN: AACCM0991R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shailesh Shah Department by : Shri Ram Krishna Kedia Date of Hearing : 02.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RA…

Income Tax Officer-2(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.More Marketing Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

The Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1166/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit-15(3)(1) M/S. Translands Infrastructure Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, Developers P. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Jn-3, 14-15, Aashirward Chs, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Sector-9, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Bairaga, CA

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…d discharged in the current year, the provision u/s 68 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in this regard we relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd, 301 ITR 384, M/s. Sooraj Leathers Vs. ITO ITA. No.305/Mds/2016, Ivan Singh Vs. ACIT & CIT Vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 441. Accordingly, we delete the addition in question and decide these issues in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 5. We agree that ITAT has already adjudicated the issue arising in this appeal. The aforesai…

ACIT Centtral -2 Indore, Indore vs. M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Ltd, Indore

Accordingly ground no. 2 of the cross objection stands allowed

ITA 13/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit Central-2, M/S Kalyan Toll Infrastructure Indore Ltd., Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No.Aacck1840M

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…h credit generated during the relevant year and therefore, cannot be taxed u/s 68 in a year in which the amount is not actually received by the assessee. Similarly the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 affirmed the order of the Honourable Tribunal which has endorsed the decision of the CIT(A) that since there was no fresh credit entry in the previous year under consideration and the impugned credit entries were already made and accounted for in earlier years, the same cannot be considered u/s 68 in the year under consideration and the AO was no…

Shri Shri Devi Chand Jain, Kawardha (C.G.) vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 277/BIL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 277/Rpr/2016 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 78/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Devi Chand Jain Prop. M/S. Loonkaram Devi Chand Jain, Main Road, Pandariya (C.G.) Pan : Abfpj6738Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rajnandgaon. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, A.R Revenue By : Shri G.N Singh, D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 A.Ys.2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ld have been made in the hands of the assessee during the year under consideration. Our aforesaid conviction is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 384 (Del), wherein it was observed as under : “ 6. Section 68 of the Act reads as under: 68. Cash credits Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessed maintained for any previous year, and the assessed offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Of…

Shri Devi Chand Jain vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Rajnandgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/BIL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Translands Infrastructure Developers P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1676/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1676/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Translands Infrastructure बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Room No.451, Aayakar Vs. Office No. A-702, 7Th Floor, Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Everest Nivara Infotech Park, Mumbai-400020. Plot No.D/3, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadct0036B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri J. P. Bairagra Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act. A.Y.2012-13 2. Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Which Was Reopened By Ao On The Basis Of Borrowed Satisfaction I.E. Merely On The Basis Of Information Received In Letter From Dy. Dit (Inv.) In Respect Of Search & Seizure U/S 132 Of The Act In The Case Of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt Without Application Of His Own Mind Before Issue Of Notice U/S 148. 3. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Reassessment U/S 147 Reopened By Ao Without Taking The Requisite Approval From The Principal Commissioner U/S 151(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Recording The Satisfaction That It Is A Fit Case For Reopening On The Basis Of Reasons For Reopening Recorded By The Ld Ao As No Exact Copy Of The Said Approval Has Been Given To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…d discharged in the current year, the provision u/s 68 of the Act is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and in this regard we relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd, 301 ITR 384, M/s. Sooraj Leathers Vs. ITO ITA. No.305/Mds/2016, Ivan Singh Vs. ACIT & CIT Vs. Jagatkumar Satishbhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 441. Accordingly, we delete the addition in question and decide these issues in favour of the assessee against the revenue. ISSUE NOs. 1 to 4 5 A.Y.2012-13 7. Since the issue nos. 5 to 8 has been decided in favour…