Diagnostics v. CIT

334 ITR 111High Court2011#2475 most cited

What is Diagnostics v. CIT authority for?

A party's non-appearance or inability to be found at an address three years after a transaction does not, by itself, prove the party does not exist or that the transaction is not genuine, especially when payments were made via account payee cheques.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Diagnostics v CIT · section 131 · section 147 · genuine transaction · non-appearance of party · account payee cheques · summons not served · party not found · bona fide transaction · creditworthiness of payee

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 69256 DTR 317

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 80ICSection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

amp expendituresection 92batrue and full disclosuresanction under section 151section 148(2)transfer pricing orderfresh tangible materialsanctioning authoritymaterial facts necessary for assessmentfirst proviso to section 147section 151(1)section 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing Diagnostics v. CIT

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 69C

…he assessee has received cash out of the bill receipts; i) While coming to conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s M K Brothers -163 ITR 249(Guj); ii) ITO V/s Permanand 107 TTJ 395, ITAT Jodhpur Bench; iii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); 5 CO No.249/M/14 v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITA…

ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jigar V. Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 1719/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Jigar Vinaychandra Shah, ITO, Ward 25(2)(1), B-301, Third Floor, C-11, Room No.107, Prem Apartment, First Floor, Kaybee Geejay Co-Op. Hsg. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Soc., Vs. B.K.C., Near Gurudwara, Mumbai - 400051 Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092 PAN: AOYPS4771C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/o ITO 25(2)(1), Shri Jigar Vinaychandra Shah, C-11 Bldg., Room No.107, B-3/11, Jai Punit Nagar CHSL, P.K. Bhava…

Jigar Vinachandra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1223/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya, D.R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Jigar Vinaychandra Shah, ITO, Ward 25(2)(1), B-301, Third Floor, C-11, Room No.107, Prem Apartment, First Floor, Kaybee Geejay Co-Op. Hsg. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Soc., Vs. B.K.C., Near Gurudwara, Mumbai - 400051 Saibaba Nagar, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092 PAN: AOYPS4771C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/o ITO 25(2)(1), Shri Jigar Vinaychandra Shah, C-11 Bldg., Room No.107, B-3/11, Jai Punit Nagar CHSL, P.K. Bhava…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Ratansingh Rathord, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5297/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chandra VijayFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Sejpal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 24

…stion had been held as genuine purchase, addition of Rs, 55,632/- could not be made to the income of the assessee. Hence, the revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed" Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported at 334 ITR 111 has held as under:- Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod “However, as regards the payments made to M/s. Selvas Photographic are concerned amounting to Rs.3,12,302/-, we find that those have been made by account payee cheques and those have been encashed through the bankers of M/s. Selvas Photographic. It appears that according to the appellant, at the time…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Ratansingh M, .Rathod, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Chandra VijayFor Respondent: Shri D.C. Sejpal
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 24

…stion had been held as genuine purchase, addition of Rs, 55,632/- could not be made to the income of the assessee. Hence, the revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed" Similarly, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Diagnostics v CIT reported at 334 ITR 111 has held as under:- Shri Ratansingh M. Rathod “However, as regards the payments made to M/s. Selvas Photographic are concerned amounting to Rs.3,12,302/-, we find that those have been made by account payee cheques and those have been encashed through the bankers of M/s. Selvas Photographic. It appears that according to the appellant, at the time…

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Uni Packs (India), Mumbai

ITA 5239/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 O/O. Ito 25(2)(2), M/S. Uni Packs (India) C-11 Bldg., 1, Suja Apt., Ground Floor, Room No.106, I.C. Colony, Vs. Pratyakshkar Bhavan (E), Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), Pan: Aaafu 7506J Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue By : Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, D.R
Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 O/o. ITO 25(2)(2), M/s. Uni Packs (India) C-11 Bldg., 1, Suja Apt., Ground Floor, Room No.106, I.C. Colony, Vs. Pratyakshkar Bhavan (E), Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 092 Bandra (E), PAN: AAAFU 7506J Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.R. Revenue by : Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judici…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2227/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 2227/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-I, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-Operative Faridabad Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv2714R Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 2227/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Deputy Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Varsa Buildwell India Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-I, A-16/B-1, Mohan Co-operative Faridabad Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCV2714R Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 12.…