DCIT v. Rajgir Builders

70 ITD 226Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#25519 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Rajgir Builders

M/S Neelkamal Realtors Suburban P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 86/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Neelkamal Realtors Income Tax, Suburban Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1(4), Db House, Room No. 902, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Vs. 9Th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Yashodham, Old Cgo Building Annexe, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaccn1892N

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM The Asst. Commissioner of M/s Neelkamal Realtors Income Tax, Suburban Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1(4), DB House, Room No. 902, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Vs. 9th Floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Yashodham, Old CGO Building Annexe, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACCN1892N Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Kothari, CA Revenue by : Shri C.T. Mathews, DR Date of hearing: 19.04.2022 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appea…

ACIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Fort Project Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2248/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) I.T.A. No. 2248/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…rt in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxmann 422 (SC) does not apply. He also referred to the decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the cases of Manish Builders v. ITO (2012-TIOL-159-ITAT-MUM) and DCIT vs. Rajgir Builders (70 ITD 226) (Mum) referred 3 I.T.A. No. 2248/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Fort Project Pvt. Ltd to by the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the same does not apply to the facts of the assessee’s case. On the issue of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Rules, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment L…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…as per agreement is to be accepted. In case of CIT vs. Smt. Suraj Devi 328 ITR 604, Hon'ble High Court has held that primary burden to prove under statement or concealment of income is on the revenue. Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of DCIT vs Rajgir Builders 70 ITD 226 has held where investments made was fully supported by entries in books of accounts and there being no evidence to show any undisclosed investment addition made on estimated basis is not justifiable. In view of the facts of the case and the judicial decisions of Hon'ble Courts it is held that no incriminating documents were found and seized which…