How many judgments cite DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil?

101 judgments on BharatTax cite DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil (67 SOT 52), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 69C, Section 115BBE, Section 131, Section 139, Section 142(1).

DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil

67 SOT 52Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#1098 most cited

What is DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil authority for?

Where purchases are accepted as genuine and a deduction allowed, the corresponding liability cannot be added under Section 68. The case also provides authority on the application of Section 69C when suppliers are non-genuine but the purchases themselves are not doubted.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil · 67 SOT 52 · Section 68 · Section 69C · unexplained expenditure · cash credit · genuine purchases · bogus suppliers · addition for purchases · non-genuine suppliers · bogus bills

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 69C Section 115BBE Section 131 Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

unexplained expenditure section 69c section 133(6)company total income business section 143(3)document

Judgments citing DCIT v. Rajeev G. Kalathil

DCIT, CIRCLE - 19(1), DELHI vs. RAMAYNA ISPAT PVT. LTD., DELHI

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

ITA 4147/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalramayna Ispat Private Limited, Dcit, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, A-48, 1St Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs. Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aaccr7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Maneesh Upneja, Ca, Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Department By Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 11.07.2024 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ramayna Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Ltd. Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing, Processing, Forging, Casting Mixing Of Various Kinds Of Steel, Carbon Settle, Mild Steel, Stainless Steel, High Speed Steel & Bright Steel Etc. The Return Of Income Was Revised On 28.10.2018 At An Income Of Rs.1,00,96,587/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 For The Reason That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Of Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Submissions Made, Ao Had Made The Addition Of Rs.5,78,99,593/- U/S 69C Of The Act Towards Unexplained Expenditure On Account Of Bogus Purchase & Further Invoked The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Ao Further Made An Addition Of Rs.3,14,795/- By Estimating The Net Profit Declared By The Assessee. Besides This Further Disallowance Of Rs.9,37,608/- Was Made Out Of Freight Expenses And, Accordingly, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.6,87,83,788/-.

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 690Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, DCIT, A-48, 1st Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. Vs. New Delhi. PAN-AACCR7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Ramayna Ispat Private Limited, A-48, 1st Floor, Wazirpur Circle-19(1), New Delhi. Vs. Industrial Area, Delhi-110052. PAN-AACCR7382R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Maneesh Upneja, CA, Shri Baldev Raj, CA & Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Department by Shri Khitesh Gupta, Sr. DR Date of He…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2), NOIDA, NOIDA vs. BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY, GREATER NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5107/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Bhavya Pipe Industry Ward-5(1)(2), Plot No. F-39, Site- C, Noida. Vs. Upsidc, Industrial Area, Surajpur ,Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida-201306 Uttar Pradesh. Pan-Aatfb2209D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 136(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Bhavya Pipe Industry Ward-5(1)(2), Plot No. F-39, Site- C, Noida. Vs. UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Surajpur ,Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida-201306 Uttar Pradesh. PAN-AATFB2209D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.28/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2022-23) Bhavya Pipe Industry Income Tax Officer, Plot No. F-39, Site- C, Ward-5(1)(2), UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Vs. Noida. Surajpur ,Gautam Buddha Nagar, Gr. Noida-201306 Uttar Pradesh. PAN-AATFB2209D (…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI vs. AKASH DEEP SETHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and at the same time, the cross objections filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 4973/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanincome Tax Officer, Vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) Co No.26/Del/2025 (In Ita No.4973/Del/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (Pan : Abyps8933P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, Ca Ms. Kirti, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2025 Date Of Order : 16.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, vs. Akash Deep Sethi, Delhi. B-236, Derawal Nagar, Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (PAN : ABYPS8933P) CO No.26/Del/2025 (in ITA No.4973/DEL/2024) (Assessment Year: 2021-22) Akash Deep Sethi, vs. Income Tax Officer, B-236, Derawal Nagar, Delhi. Model Town, Delhi – 110 009. (PAN : ABYPS8933P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Aman Garg, CA Ms. Kirti, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of H…

MUSADDILAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.272/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Musaddilal Jewellers Private Vs. Acit, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaecm1213A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ca Bhupesh Kumar Dand ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr

For Appellant: CA Bhupesh Kumar DandFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Singhania, DR

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’ble Judicial Member And Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’ble Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.272/Hyd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Musaddilal Jewellers Private Vs. ACIT, Limited, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN: AAECM1213A (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : CA Bhupesh Kumar Dand ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 14/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of :…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…en credited in the account of the supplier cannot be added under section 68 of the Act, more so when the purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed." xiii) 95 TTJ 71 (Del) Annamaria Travels & Tours (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 67 SOT 52 (Mum) DCIT v Rajeev G. Kalathil xiv) 167 ITD 621 (Mum) M/s. Fancy Wear vs ITO., 6.But,we will like to decide the issue on merits also. The AO or the FAA have not rejected the books of accounts of the assessee nor have doubted the purchases made by it. The recognised principles of accountancy and tax jurisprudence hold that no sales can take place w…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1461/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1460 & 1461/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2009-10) Income Tax Officer – 5(2)(2) v. M/s. Karteek Ferromet Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 567, 5th Floor 2nd Floor, Plot No. 162 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Fanjawala Building Mumbai – 400020 M.G. Mahimtura Marg Kumbharwada, Giarguaum Mumbai - 400004 PAN: AADCK4241K (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee by : Department by Ms. Smita Verma Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2021 O…

ITO 5 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S KARTEEK FERROMET PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1460/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Smita Verma

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

ITO - 31 (2)(4), MUMBAI vs. NARENDRA R. BOHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6371/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) V. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/S. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2Nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 Pan: Aaapb7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Patni

For Appellant: Shri Suresh PatniFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer- 31(2)(4) v. Shri Narendra R. Bohra 105, C-13, Pratyakshakar Bhavan Prop. M/s. Veena Industries Bandra Kurla Complex 203, 2nd Floor, Amar Business Centre Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (W) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai – 400 014 PAN: AAAPB7696M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suresh Patni Department by : Shri R. Bhoopathi Date of Hearing : 05.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (…

ACIT CEN. CIR. - 25, MUMBAI vs. M/S. PARLE PRODUCTS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result this ground No

ITA 6964/MUM/2004[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2019AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma () & Shri Pawan Singh () - Ay 1998-99 - Ay 2002-03 Ita No. 3891/Mum/2007 - Ay 2003-04 - Ay 2009-10 - Ay 2008-09 - Ay 2007-08 - Ay 2006-07 - Ay 2010-11

Section 14ASection 41(1)

…e jurisdictional High Court has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 30th August, 2013 in SLP (Civil) No.14828/2013). The Ld.AR further placed his reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DC IT Vs Rajeev G Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mumbai Trib). 32. The Ld. DR, on the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of the assessing officer. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the investigation wing of the Income-tax department made full flagged investigation on the information received from the sales tax department of State Government and came to the concl…

ASST CIT 16(3), MUMBAI vs. TH ZONE PROJECTS, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

Section 69C

…nswer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.6 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…wer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3.8. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that M/s Solo Hardware Pvt. Ltd. assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying…

DINESH S. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1828/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2012-13

…in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 14 Dinesh S. Jain 2.6 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3.5. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 7.6. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

RALF JEMS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1574/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 3.6 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper VAT and registration N…

SHRI JAYANTILAL K. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayantilal K Jain, Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1), 35, Krishna Kunj, Kika Matru Mandir, बनाम/ Street, Gulalwadi, Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aajpj8095K

…swer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2.6 The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs Rajeev G. Kalathil (2015) 67 SOT 52 (Mum. Trib.)(URO), identically, held as under:- 14 Jayantilal K. Jain “2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him it was argued that assessee had filed copies of bills of purchase from DKE and NBE, that both the suppliers were registered dealers and were carrying proper…

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6