CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati) and Byramji & Company v. CIT

322 ITR 320High Court#24481 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati) and Byramji & Company v. CIT

Asst CIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Zydus Nycomed Healthcare P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3336/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Acit 15(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4670/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बिधम/ Dcit-15(3)(1) M/S. Zydus Nycomed Room No. 451, 4Th Floor, Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-4 Mid, Vill. Pawane, Aayakar Bhavan,Maharshi Thane Belapur Road, Vashi, Karve Road, Mumbai- Navi Mumbai-400705. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz0736D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2011-12. I.T.A. Nos.3336/Mum/2016 4670/Mum/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B. V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80ISection 92C

…le grounds for deciding the appeal as appellant's claim of exemption under sec. 10B was already subject matter of adjudication by the Hon’ble ITAT in earlier years. 2.4.22 In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of case CIT vs. P.S. Jain & Co. Ltd. 322 ITR 320(Del.) where it has been held that the CIT(A) had exercised his discretion in allowing additional evidence in respect of cash credits and had also afforded an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the additional evidence. In view of the same it was held that there was no perversity in the finding of the Tribunal in confirming the action…

ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Chanakya Stock Broking Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 611/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…e appellant. In the view of the matter, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained sundry creditors is not sustainable. (Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court income CIT vs. P.S.Jain & Co. Ltd. (210) 322 ITR 320 (Del)) in this regard. There is another aspect of the matter in the case of CIT vs. Pancham Das Jain (2006) 205 CTR (All) 444, it was held that provisions of Sec.68 are not attracted to amounts representing purchases on credits. It was observed. The Tribunal has recorded a categoric findings of fact based on appreciation of materials and evidenc…

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Pukhraj S. Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2010-11 Ito-16(1)(3), Shri Pukhraj S. Jain, R. No.220, 2Nd Floor, 8, Ground Flr, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Tardeo Rd. Guru Rajendra House, Vs. Mumbai-400007 135 Trimbak Parshuram St. 6Th Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aajpj8080C

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…evidence and further to decide in accordance with law. Our view is fortified by the decision and ratio laid down therein in CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati) and Byramji & Company Vs. CIT 11 ITR 286 (Nagpur), CIT Vs. P.S. Jain & Company Ltd 322 ITR 320 (Del.), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) So far as invoking section 41 of the Act is concerned. The assessee has explained the reasons for making the payments which were on account of lack of funds and further the assessee established that the creditors to the tune of Rs. 1.54 crores out of Rs. 1.79 crores were actually paid in l…