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.

98

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 68Section 1961Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 250
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 2(9)section 271aab(1a)section 158basection 158b(b)purposive interpretationsection 113section 158bb(1)addition under section 68project completion methodhouse property incomesection 158bdnon application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd.

Dayananda Pai vs. DCIT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 456/BANG/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jan 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year :1998-99

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 140ASection 143Section 148Section 234Section 234ASection 234B

…me should be deleted. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. The ld. AR of assessee placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements. A) CIT Vs. Prameshwar Bohra, 301 ITR 404(Raj) B) CIT Vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd., 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) C) CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 (SC) 6. The ld. DR of revenue placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 (SC). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and gone through the judgeme…

Venkatesan P, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 2533/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Venkatesan P, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 101, 3Rd Cross, 2Nd Main, Ward – 7(2)(3), Chikkalakshmaiah Layout, Bangalore. D.R. College Post, Suddeguntepalya, Bangalore – 560 029. Pan : Aaxpv 2457 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Gangadhara Shastry, Income Tax Consultant Revenue By : Shri. Inder Solanki, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Gangadhara Shastry, Income TaxFor Respondent: Shri. Inder Solanki, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

…e of addition of Rs.9,17,410/- made in the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dated 15.12.2010 to the file of the AO for re-examination in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farm Ltd., (301 ITR 384); holding as under at para 4 thereof: “4. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We find that the amount in question is a brought forward balance as shown in the account of the two parties viz., M/s.Beijia Industrial Co. Ltd., and M/s.S.I.International Co., who are stated to be suppliers of the asses…

Abn Tower & Transmission Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1519/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abn Tower & Transmission Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aajcs 4837 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…lar circumstances . Similarly, this tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Paramic Goods Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 1931/Kol/2016 dated 27.7.2018 had held as under:- “9. As held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. reported in 301 ITR 384 as well as by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Bohra reported in 301 ITR 404, the amount received by the assessee in the earlier year and not in the year under consideration and duly credited in the books of account of the assessee for such earlier year cannot be added under section 68 as unexplained cash credit for the…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, C/o Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/o Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCD0768P Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the asse…

I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Sankhuwala Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1973/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1973/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Ward 1(4) Kolkata................................…………………………................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Sankhuwala Commercial Pvt. Ltd....................………………………………….Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 072. [Pan: Aaecs 8688 P] Appearances By: Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 3, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 27, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 14.07.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 54.70 Crores Made By The A.O. By Treating The Share Capital & Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…e A.O. under section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 and that of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404. 6. The Submissions filed by the assessee along with the relevant supporting documentary evidence were forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the A.O. for his verification and comments. In the remand report submitted to the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. offered his comment…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Paramic Goods Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 1931/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1931/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dcit Circle 1(2) Kolkata................................…………………………..............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, R. No. 14, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. M/S. Paramic Goods Pvt. Ltd....................…………………………………………………Respondent 8/1, Princep Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aaecp 5636 Q] Appearances By: Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 3, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 27, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 1, Kolkata Dated 13.07.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 54.35 Crores Made By The A.O. By Treating The Share Capital & Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit.

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…e A.O. under section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit was not sustainable. In support of this contention, reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 and that of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Parmeshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404. 6. The Submissions filed by the assessee along with the relevant supporting documentary evidence were forwarded by the Ld. CIT(A) to the A.O. for his verification and comments. In the remand report submitted to the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. offered his comment…

Syntensia Network Security India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2927/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…consideration and balance was opening balance in the account of the assessee. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the amount of Rs. 9,61,000/= could not have been considered during the year under consideration. We see no error in Tribunal's view. 2. [2008) 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1999-2000 - During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had shown certain amount as advance from one 'B1 - As assessee failed to file confirmation from B, Assessing Officer made addition of that amou…

I.T.O., Ward-1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Jellotic Supply Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1972/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 144Section 147Section 263Section 68

…r 1999-2000, the A.O has erred in facts and law to bring these to tax in previous year 2004-05 relevant to assessment year 2005-06. The appellant's A. R has also relied upon judgements of the High Courts in the case of CIT vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. 301 ITR 384 (Delhi) and in CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra 301 ITR 404 (Rajasthan) for the proposition that where a sum was found credited in earlier years but additions were made in subsequent year, it was clearly held that same amount of share capital which is coming as opening balance being brought forward from earlier year cannot be added in later year u/s 68 o…

ACIT, Vellore vs. Ramulu Mani, Vaniambadi

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

ITA 690/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 690/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Ramulu Mani, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. No. 671, Munisamy Mudali Street, Vellore. Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi 635 601. [Pan:Aippm4874M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Gopal, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 23.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K. Gopal, C.A
Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘‘डी’’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 690/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramulu Mani, Income Tax, Circle 1, Vs. No. 671, Munisamy Mudali Street, Vellore. Khaderpet, Vaniyambadi 635 601. [PAN:AIPPM4874M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर स…

Crest Composites & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1540/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1540/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Crest Composite & Plastics Pvt. Ito, Ltd. – 808, Vs Ward – 1(2), Abhishree Adroit, Judges Ahmedabad. Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1456/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito, Crest Composite & Plastics Ward – 1(2), Vs Pvt. Ltd. – 808, Ahmedabad. Abhishree Adroit, Judges Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 Pan : Aaacc 6333 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prakash Udeshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Dated 10.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.1540/Ahd/2015: 1. The Hon’Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Has Erred On The Facts & In Law By Confirming The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.1,45,617/-.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Udeshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…0/- is an opening balance which is being carried forward for F.Y.2007-08 and there is no new amount has been taken during the year under consideration and an addition u/s.68 is not legal and assessee cited a judgment CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Famrs Ltd. (301 ITR 384)(Delhi HC) in the appeal, it has been held that no addition u/s.68 with respect to opening balance. In our considered opinion, in such circumstances this ground of appeal cannot sustain. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 16. So far as ground related to deleing the addition of Rs.95,274/- made by AO toward the late payment of emp…

The ITO, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Crest Composites & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1456/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1540/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Crest Composite & Plastics Pvt. Ito, Ltd. – 808, Vs Ward – 1(2), Abhishree Adroit, Judges Ahmedabad. Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1456/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito, Crest Composite & Plastics Ward – 1(2), Vs Pvt. Ltd. – 808, Ahmedabad. Abhishree Adroit, Judges Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 Pan : Aaacc 6333 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prakash Udeshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Dated 10.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.1540/Ahd/2015: 1. The Hon’Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Has Erred On The Facts & In Law By Confirming The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.1,45,617/-.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Udeshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR

…0/- is an opening balance which is being carried forward for F.Y.2007-08 and there is no new amount has been taken during the year under consideration and an addition u/s.68 is not legal and assessee cited a judgment CIT vs. Usha Stud Agricultural Famrs Ltd. (301 ITR 384)(Delhi HC) in the appeal, it has been held that no addition u/s.68 with respect to opening balance. In our considered opinion, in such circumstances this ground of appeal cannot sustain. In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 16. So far as ground related to deleing the addition of Rs.95,274/- made by AO toward the late payment of emp…

Dsd Builders & Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for both the years are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 2735/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ITA No.2735/Mum/2015 & 2736/Mum/2015 (Assessment Year :2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S. DSD Builders Vs. DCIT – 8(1)(3)-Mumbai Developers Pvt.Ltd., 103, Neel Ashish anand Road, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai – 400057 PAN/GIR No. AACCD2842A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sandip Kejriwal Revenue by Shri Saurabh Rai Date of Hearing 01/09/2017 Date of Pronouncement 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 05/01/2015…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Burdwan vs. Burdwan Central Cooperative Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd., Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1007/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1007/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Burdwan.............................………………………….........................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound Burdwan. Burdwan Central Co-Op. Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd.………………………………………………............................................................Respondent Memari, Burdwan [Pan: Aaccb3520D] Appearances By: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri N.C. Mondal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 13, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 19.02.2010. 2. In Ground No 1 To 4, The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit (A) In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A) Of The Act In Respect Of Bank Commission, Handling Charges, Insurance Charges & Drying Charges. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Cooperative Society Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Letting Out Of Warehouse & Trading In Agricultural Equipments, Fertilizers & Other Articles For The Purpose Of Supplying Them To Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Year

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80B(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A. No. 1007/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 A.C.I.T., Cir-1, Burdwan.............................………………………….........................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Court Compound Burdwan. Burdwan Central Co-op. Agricultural Production & Marketing Society Ltd.………………………………………………............................................................Respondent Memari, Burdwan [PAN: AACCB3520D] Appearances by: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri N.C. Mondal, FCA appea…

ITO 24(3)(3), Mumbai vs. O.K. Susheela Nambiar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6788/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-24(3)-3 Smt. O.K. Susheela Nambiar Room No. 705, 7Th Floor, 201, Krishna Kunj, Film City Vs. C-11, Road, Goregaon (E), Pratyakshakarbhavan, Mumbai-400063. Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aafpn0427K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By: Shri R. Ananthakrishnan, Ar Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2017

For Appellant: Shri R. Ananthakrishnan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 ITO-24(3)-3 Smt. O.K. Susheela Nambiar Room No. 705, 7th floor, 201, Krishna Kunj, Film City Vs. C-11, Road, Goregaon (E), PratyakshakarBhavan, Mumbai-400063. BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAFPN0427K Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR Assessee by: Shri R. Ananthakrishnan, AR Date of Hearing : 30/05/2017 Date of pronouncement : 24/08/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The r…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Standard Leather Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2010-11 ITO Ward-12(1), बनाम / M/s Standard Leather Pvt. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Ltd., 21G. Atal Sur Road, V/s. Chowringhee Squre, Tangra, Kolkata-700 015 Kolkta-700 069 [PAN No.AAECS 4167 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-06-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 07-09-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O…

S. Venkatesan, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 946/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Venkatesan, No.7, Kaveri Layout, Dc Post, Suddaguntepalya, Bangalore-560029. … Appellant Pan: Aaxpv 2457 P Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Bangalore. ... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gangadhar Sastry, ITPFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Venkatesan, No.7, Kaveri Layout, DC post, Suddaguntepalya, Bangalore-560029. … Appellant PAN: AAXPV 2457 P Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Bangalore. ... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Gangadhar Sastry, ITP. Respondent by : Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 17/03/2016 Date of pronouncement : 12/04/2016 O R D E R Per VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14/04/2014 of the CIT(A), LTU, Bangalore, f…

Suryapraksh G. Agarwal, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 22(3), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5779/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.5779/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Suryaprakash G. The Acit, Circle 22(3), बनाम/ Agarwal, Mumbai Vs. Sunny Real Estate Consultants, Arenja Corner, Sec-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-40 703 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 7894B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Dr P. Danial Shri Love Kumar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

For Appellant: Dr P. Danial
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…he assessee could not file the confirmations, he accepted the advances of earlier years has being forfeited and offered the same as income for the year under consideration. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd 301 ITR 384 has held that since the credit balance in the accounts of the assessee did not pertain to the year under consideration, the AO was not justified in making the additions. A similar view was taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Prameshwar Bohara 301 ITR 404 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the carried forward amount f…

M/S Habib Proteins & Fats Extracts, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 527/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Habib Proteins & Fats Extracts, C/O. N.K.Agro Oil (P) Ltd., No.63/1, Iii Floor, Mosque Road Cross, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560 052; … Appellant Pan: Aadfh6338K Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Habib Proteins & Fats Extracts, C/o. N.K.Agro Oil (P) Ltd., No.63/1, III Floor, Mosque Road Cross, Frazer town, Bangalore-560 052; … Appellant PAN: AADFH6338K Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Bangalore. … Respondent Appellant by: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Respondent by: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 18/06/2015 Date of pronouncement: 30/06/2015. O R D E R Per Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of th…