Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House

198 Taxmann 385High Court2011#8288 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…2016-17.The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions. 1. CIT Vs. Symphony Confort Systems Ltd [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj]. 2. CIT Vs. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 RAJ] 3. PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] 4. CIT Vs. Jacksons House [198 Taxmann 385] 5. CIT Vs. Jananamadal Ltd [214 Taxmann 49] 6. CIT Vs. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 26. We find the Honble Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bangalore Trib), dated 13-12-2021 has dealt on the transaction of cash sales during the demonization period and has observed at Para 6 of the ord…

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…2016-17.The Ld. AR relied on the following judicial decisions. 1. CIT Vs. Symphony Confort Systems Ltd [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj]. 2. CIT Vs. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 RAJ] 3. PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] 4. CIT Vs. Jacksons House [198 Taxmann 385] 5. CIT Vs. Jananamadal Ltd [214 Taxmann 49] 6. CIT Vs. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 26. We find the Honble Tribunal in the case of Anantpur Kalpana Vs. ITO, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 141 (Bangalore Trib), dated 13-12-2021 has dealt on the transaction of cash sales during the demonization period and has observed at Para 6 of the ord…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S JAIPURIA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 1332/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan : Aaccb1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.Dr Respondent By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date Of Hearing 18.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 16.06.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 28/01/2011 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Vii, New Delhi [In Short “The Cit-(A)”] For Assessment Year 2007-08, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Circle – 4(1), Room No. Jaipuria Infrastructure 407, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Developers, 9B, Hansalaya, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN : AACCB1286C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR Respondent by S/sh. Rupesh Jain & Dipesh Jain, Adv. Date of hearing 18.05.2017 Date of pronouncement 16.06.2017 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 28/01/2011 o…

SMEC INTERNATIONAL PTY. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, INTL. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 5926/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Range-2, M/S. Smec International Pvt. Ltd., Bansal’S Flat, P-39 , 1St New Delhi Floor, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi Pan : Aaics3406K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R. M. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 17/10/2012 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Giving Effect To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (In Short ‘Drp’). The Grounds Raised In Appeal Were Modified Through An Application Dated 24/09/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “ 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Rejecting Books Of Account As There Are No Descrepancies & The Lower Profit Is No Reason To Reject The Books Of Account & The A O Is Also Wrong In Holding That The Separate Project Wise

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 163Section 40Section 44BSection 44D

…t decline in NP rate cannot be a reason for rejecting books of accounts. In this connection, the learned Authorized Representative relied on various decisions including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jackson’s house (2011) 198 Taxmann 385 (Delhi). 3.2.5 The learned Authorized Representative submitted that having accepted in preceding and succeeding years, the manner in which the assessee maintained its books of accounts, the Department cannot turn around and impose in a solitary year, the condition of project-wise records for purpose of rejecting the books of accounts, especia…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jacksons House (198 Taxmann 385) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax