CIT Vs. Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 47 SOT 212/12 Taxman.com 178 (Delhi) Asst. CIT v. Budha Lai & Co.

47 SOT 27Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#17967 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT Vs. Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 47 SOT 212/12 Taxman.com 178 (Delhi) Asst. CIT v. Budha Lai & Co.

The ITO-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. A B Color Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 3(1)(1) V. M/S. A.B. Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 666, 6Th Floor 901, Maker Chamber V Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Narimanpoint, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaaca3373K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

…rame best judgment assessment on hypothetical basis by applying a particular gross profit ratio 3. CIT v. Smt. Poonam Rani [2010] 326 ITR 223 (Del) 10-14 4. PCIT v. IBILT Technologies Ltd. [2018] 98 taxmann.com 255 (Del) 15-24 5. ACIT v. Budhalal & Co. [2011] 47 SOT 27 (Ahm) 25-36 Books of accounts which are regularly maintained and duly audited, free from any qualification by the auditors, should be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. The onus is upon the Revenue to show that the Books of accounts were incorrect or incomplete 6. CIT v. Paradise Ho…

ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Eternity Jewels, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1318/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ito-24(1)(5) M/S. Eternity Jewels 523, Piramal Chambers, G-11, Gems Jewellery, Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Complex-Ii, Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aaafe 7145 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. G. Pansari : Shri Reepal Tralshawala Respondent By : 28.11.2018 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri D. G. PansariFor Respondent: 28.11.2018

Section 145

…1.45 crorese based on the same books he rejected u/s. 143(3). Assessee in support of his arguments relied on the following decisions :- a. Reliable Surface Coatings 7 ITR (Trib.) 183 (Ahd.) b. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 137 TTJ(Pune) 627 4 c. Budhalal & Co. 47 SOT 27 d. Vishal Jewellers 46 SOT 306. 6. Considering the above, the ld. CIT(A) opined that the A.O. has not found any specific fault in the books of the assessee. That he has neither analyzed the increase in the consumption nor given any reason for rejecting the assessee’s explanation in this regard. The ld. CIT(A) concluded as under: 7.1 Merely based o…

Rama Dairy, Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, Circle, Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 5309/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…bmitted that AO was not justified in adopting the result of AY 2010-11 also. In view of above contentions, he relied upon the following case laws:- - CIT vs. Poonam Rani 326 ITR 223 (Del.) - CIT vs. OM Overseas 315 ITR 185 (P&H). - ACIT vs. Budhalal & Co. 47 SOT 27 (Ahd.) - DCIT vs. Vishwanath Prasad Gupta 137 TTJ 385 TM Jabalpur - CIT vs. Ludhiana Steel Roll Mills 295 ITR 111 (P&H) - Aluminium Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 80 Taxman 184 (Gau.) 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that AO has reasonably estimated the NP rate, which does not need any inte…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Media Satellite & Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 415/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Media Satellite & Telecom Ward-16(3), Ltd, New Delhi 1201, B-89, Hemkunt Chamber, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm0721D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ruction & Investment Co. Vs. Asst. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 73(Guj)] In support of the above contentions we also rely upon the following judgments: CIT Vs. Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 47 SOT 212/12 Taxman.com 178 (Delhi) Asst. CIT Vs. Budha Lai & Co. (2011) 47 SOT 27 (URO)/10 Taxmann.com 52 (AHD) DCIT Vs. Ravi Ceramics ITA No. 2959 (AHD) of 2009 AY 2006-07 ITAT Ahmadabad Bench C order dated 11.05.2012. Without prejudice to the above contentions the Ld. AO has further erred in calculating the economics of sales made to MVL Telecoms Ltd. for games only. He has conveniently ignored a large volume of sales made to…

Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7183/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle -3(2), New Delhi P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaaca6163D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 Order

Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…he AO to reject an assessee's books of account and go on to make the addition on an estimated basis without pointing out any defects in such books of account: • Aluminium Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 184 (Gau.); • ACIT v. Budhalal & Co. [2011] 47 SOT 27 (Ahmedabad)(URO); • Babu Jewellers v. Income-tax Officer [2011] 141 TTJ 73 (Chandigarh - Trib.)(UO); • Narendra Mafatlal Mehta vs. Income-Tax Officer [1997] 59 TTJ 165 (Mum.); • DCIT v. Subhash Chand Agrawal [2013] 58 SOT 122 (Allahabad - Trib.)(URO); • Pushpanjali Dyeing & Printing Mills (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT [2001] 72 TTJ 886 (Ahmedabad) 22 4. The L…