DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd.

329 ITR 1High Court2010#2258 most cited

What is DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd. authority for?

Section 115BBE, which imposes a higher tax rate on unexplained income, does not apply to income that can be identified as arising from other sources.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd. · 329 ITR 1 · Section 115BBE · Section 68 · Section 69C · other source of income · unexplained income · applicability of 115BBE · on money receipt · high tax rate

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 131Section 131(1A)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsection 292cdumb documentsbeneficial ownersection 115bbsection 115bsection 292section 115bbeon-moneysection 29section 251section 69c

Judgments citing DCIT v. Radhe Developers India Ltd.

ACIT Circle 1(1), Ujjain vs. A One Enclave, Ujjain

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 828/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1(1), V/S M/S. A One Enclave, Ujjain 3687/1, Hariphatak Road, Ujjain

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…from other head. It was further submitted that in the said decision, the Gujarat High Court has taken into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan vs CIT (247 ITR 290), the decision of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd (329 ITR 1) and decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Chensing Ventures (291 ITR 258). It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P) ltd (258 CTR 454) has in fact relied on the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan 13 A One Enclave (supra) which has subsequently been expla…

Sh. Sanjay Bairathi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, grounds taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1343/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 251

…from other head. It was further submitted that in the said decision, the Gujarat High Court has taken into consideration its earlier decisions rendered in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan vs CIT (247 ITR 290), the decision of DCIT vs Radhe Developers India Ltd (329 ITR 1) and decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Chensing Ventures (291 ITR 258). It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Kim Pharma (P) ltd (258 CTR 454) has in fact relied on the decision of Gujarat 18 ITA N0. 1343/JP/2018 Shri Sanjay Bairathi, Jaipur. High Court in case of Fakir Mohmed HajiHasan (su…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…IT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 236(Mad) 9. CIT V/s Maulik Kumar K shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) 10. Prakash Chandra Nahata V/s CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 11. CIT v/s D.K.Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 320 Delhi 12. DCIT v/s Redha Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) 13. Nirmal Fashions (P) Ltd. V.s DCIT (2009)123 TTJ (Kol) 180. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the above plea and submissions has deleted the additions by observing as under. 16 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers “7.3 I have considered the facts of the case, submission of the appellant, finding of the AO and have…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…IT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 236(Mad) 9. CIT V/s Maulik Kumar K shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) 10. Prakash Chandra Nahata V/s CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 11. CIT v/s D.K.Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 320 Delhi 12. DCIT v/s Redha Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) 13. Nirmal Fashions (P) Ltd. V.s DCIT (2009)123 TTJ (Kol) 180. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the above plea and submissions has deleted the additions by observing as under. 16 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers “7.3 I have considered the facts of the case, submission of the appellant, finding of the AO and have…

The DCIT, Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Sai Enterprise, Surat

In the result, penalty appeal for A

ITA 2373/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meenaआ सं अ

Section 133ASection 14Section 69Section 69A

…the decision in the case of Fakir Mohd. Hazi Hasan (supra) relied by the AO that income under the deeming provision do not fall under any head of income was disapproved by the same court in their subsequent decision in the case of Radhe Developers India Ltd., 329 ITR 1 (Gujarat) and it was held that the Act does not envisage taxing any income under any head not specified in section 14. Further, reliance was placed on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Fashion World vs. ITO, ITA No.1634/Ahd dated 12.02.2010 wherein it was held that if the assets disclosed during the survey are identified with the business of…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 17/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

…-आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT– BENCH ‘SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WITH CO NO.29/AHD/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, JJ A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat PAN : AAACU 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, JJ A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat PAN : AAACU 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Malpani, CA Revenue by : Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार…

Ujala Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2274/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhwith Co No.29/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, Jj A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, Jj A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat Pan : Aaacu 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

…-आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT– BENCH ‘SURAT BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WITH CO NO.29/AHD/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) Vs. Ujala Dyeing & Printing Surat. S/112, JJ A.C. Market Ring Road Dist. Surat PAN : AAACU 2949 M "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ujala Dyeing & Printing Vs. ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1) S/112, JJ A.C. Market Surat. Ring Road Dist. Surat PAN : AAACU 2949 M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Malpani, CA Revenue by : Smt.Smitha V. Nair, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार…

M/S Jdm Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Burhanpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Khandwa

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2010-11

Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d allowance of expenses from declared income was permissible. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements in favour of his plea: 3 Penalty-Anupam Texfeb/JDM Builders and Deverlpers ITA Nos.535 & 536 of 2017 i. DCIT vs. Radhey Developers India Ltd.; 329 ITR 1 (Guj) ii. Satish Kumar Goyal; ITA No.143/Against/2014. Thus, he submitted that no penalty can be sustained when the claim is supported by judicial pronouncements and also when debatable claim/divergent views exist between different judicial authorities on an issue. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities…

M/S Anupam Texfeb Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Khandwa

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/IND/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2010-11

Section 115BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…d allowance of expenses from declared income was permissible. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements in favour of his plea: 3 Penalty-Anupam Texfeb/JDM Builders and Deverlpers ITA Nos.535 & 536 of 2017 i. DCIT vs. Radhey Developers India Ltd.; 329 ITR 1 (Guj) ii. Satish Kumar Goyal; ITA No.143/Against/2014. Thus, he submitted that no penalty can be sustained when the claim is supported by judicial pronouncements and also when debatable claim/divergent views exist between different judicial authorities on an issue. 4. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…TJ 908 (Delhi) e) Amarjit Singh Baxi v. ACIT (2004) 263 ITR (AT) 75 f) ACIT v. Ashokkumar Vig (2008) 15 SOT 85 (Ranchi) g) MM Financiers v. DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 5 (Chennal) h) Pankaj Dayabhai Patel HUF v. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.) I) Radhe Developers (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj). j) Shri Kapidev vs. JCIT (Spl. Range, Delhi) ITA No.2259/Del/2002/A.Y. 1997-98 dated 22.03.2012. It is evident that the addition of Rs.38.45 crore and Rs.5.01 crore is based only on conjectures and surmises. There is no corroborative evidence on record to prove that the appellant has actually incurred the alleged expenditure in cash. There i…

Sh. Ajay Goel, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

DCIT, Chandigarh vs. M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors, Shimla

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

M/S Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers & Contractors, Shimla vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…

The Dy. CIT- 2(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S. Arya Energy Ltd., Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 139/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Arya Energy Ltd., Income-Tax-2(1), C/O Avinash Builders, Central Revenue Building, Avinash House, Civil Lines, Vs. Near Anupam Garden, Raipur (C.G.) G.B. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aagca2002F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri P.K. Mishra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2018

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153(1)(b)Section 2Section 69C

…rts and the decisions of the various Benches of the ITAT. The Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this ground of appeal by following the decisions rendered in case of DCIT Vs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj), CIT vs Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Del) CIT vs. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj), Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy CIT (2012) 52 SOT 178 (Hyderabad) (URO), Amar Natvarlal Vs. ACIT (1197) 57 TTJ (Ahd) 454: 60 ITD 560 and Nishant Constructi…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Marshal Machines Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 57/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Y.K. SudFor Respondent: Smt. Renu Amitabh
Section 133ASection 69

…only if it is not chargeable to income tax under any heads specified in sec 14 and if the income is included under any one of the heads it cannot be taxed u/s 56. Further, reliance has been placed on the case of DCITvs. Radhe Developers India Ltd. &Anr. (Guj) 329 ITR 1 wherein the judgment of Fakir Mohamad Haji Hasan has been considered and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.P Sandhu & Bros. P. Ltd. Supra have been referred to and it has been held that the act does not envisage taxing income under any head not specified u/s 14 of the Act. The Department did not find any other source of income…