Duggal & Co. v. CIT

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

…hal Pradesh Financial Corpn. 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal Pradesh) (xvii) CIT v/s Prafulla C Pant and Dharam Veer JJ 176 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 Taxman 184 (Uttrakhand) (xviii) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd V CIT 238 ITR 867(Madras) (xix) Durgalal & Co. V CIT 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) (xx) CIT V Active Traders (P) Ltd 24ITR 583 (Calcutta) (xxi) Addl.CIT V Mukur Corporation 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 7. Per contra Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of Ld. PCIT contending that no proper enquiry was conducted for the reasons on the basis of which limited scrutiny was taken up. 8. We have he…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

…cial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And Dharam 176 Taxman 184 12 Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd.V/s Commissioner Of 238 ITR 867 (Madras) 13 Income tax 14 Durgalal & Co. Vis Commissioner Of Income tax 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 15 Commissioner of Income tax Vis Active Traders (P) Ltd. 214 ITR583 (Calcutta) 16 Add1.Commissioner Of Income tax Vis Mukur Corporation III ITR 312 (Gujarat) 2. Further reliance is here by placed or following decisions of Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunal, the list and gist of decisions are submitted now. 1 CIT V/s Amitabh Bachan…

M/S. Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Qr. Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur No.N-4/12, Ground Floor, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN/GIR No.AACCM 6126 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.R.Sahu, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20 /02/ 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /03/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act of the Pr. CIT(A), Sambalpur da…

M/S. Kalinga Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

…rong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” P a g e 3 | 7 ITA No.168/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 Similar view was reiterated by their Lorodships of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. vs. CIT [220 ITR 456]. 8. In the case of Tarajan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [205 ITR 45], the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court held as under :- “that it was not quite certain whether the tress sold in the previous year relevant to the assessment year were trees standing at the time of acquisition or trees which grew on roots and trunk existing on the date of acquisition o…