Elite\nDevelopers v. DCIT

41 ITD 97Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1992#5143 most cited
23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 144Section 801B(10)

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsection 158bcrejection of books of accounton-moneyloose paperssection 145(3)reasoned ordersection 145unexplained expendituresection 133adocuments seizedunexplained investment

Judgments citing Elite\nDevelopers v. DCIT

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

ITA 684/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 684/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

…aterial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.), KishanchandSobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reas…

Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

ITA 512/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

…aterial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.), KishanchandSobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reas…

Yagnik Road Highstreet LLP, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:

ITA 511/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 511 To 513/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, Mg Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 684/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Yagnik Road Highstreet Llp Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 Office No.102, Ornament Arcade, Darbargadh Chowk, Bedinaka Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfy4924F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/03/2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

…aterial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.), KishanchandSobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a reas…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Buildfolio Realties LLP, Rajkot

ITA 683/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 683/Rjt/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 (Hybrid Hearing) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1 Vs Buildfolio Realities Llp Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Income Tax Office, Amruta Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360001 स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…terial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.). Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a rea…

Buildfolio Realities LLP, Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

ITA 510/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…terial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.). Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a re…

Buildfolio Realities LLP, Rajkot vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Rajkot

ITA 509/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 509 & 510/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 (Hybrid Hearing) Buildfolio Realities Llp The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Income Tax, Central-1 . Shop No. 5Gf, Business Edifice, Canal Road 37, Income Tax Office, Amruta Karanpura Corner, Rajkot Estate Building, Near Girnar Cinema, M G Road, Rajkot Rajkot-360005 Rajkot-360001 "ायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aawfb8233C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…terial or evidence to corroborate the allegation or receipt of on-money, then a presumption on the basis of the documents could not be raised. This was so held in Elite Developers v. DCIT [2000] 73 ITD 379 (Nagpur-Trib.). Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. ACIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur-Trib.) and Agrawal Motors v. ACIT [1999] 68 ITD 407 (Jabalpur-Trib.) 3. Further, irrespective of the above stand, in Kishor Mohan LalTelwala v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 107 Taxman 86 (Meg.) (Ahmedabad-Trib.), evidence was unearthed about on- money received on sale of flats. The Tribunal held that what could be taxed as undisclosed income was a re…

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…wance. The disallowance has to be based on some material and cannot be arbitrary. The round figure estimated additions without giving any basis cannot be sustained. The Nagpur Tribunal in the case Elite Developers vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 73 ITD 379 (NAG.) held that the Assessing Officer had completely ignored the fact that there was no solid ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 material or cogent evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the assessee had charged on-money on sale of flats. The main reasons and fundamental basis for assessing the undisclosed…

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…wance. The disallowance has to be based on some material and cannot be arbitrary. The round figure estimated additions without giving any basis cannot be sustained. The Nagpur Tribunal in the case Elite Developers vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 73 ITD 379 (NAG.) held that the Assessing Officer had completely ignored the fact that there was no solid ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 material or cogent evidence on the basis of which it could be said that the assessee had charged on-money on sale of flats. The main reasons and fundamental basis for assessing the undisclosed…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…e ground that application of income could be allowed only in the hands of the person who has offered undisclosed income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that such an approach was contrary to the judicial precedents in the case of Elite Developers v. DCIT [73 ITD 379 (Nagpur)], J B Education Society v. ACIT [28 ITR (Trib) 284 (Hyderabad)] and Rajni M Patel v. DCIT [43 ITR (Trib) 628 (Ahmedabad)]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore urged that the denial of application of income by the Assessing Officer and its affirmation by the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and such an action needs to be reversed. 33. Ld. CIT,…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…e ground that application of income could be allowed only in the hands of the person who has offered undisclosed income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that such an approach was contrary to the judicial precedents in the case of Elite Developers v. DCIT [73 ITD 379 (Nagpur)], J B Education Society v. ACIT [28 ITR (Trib) 284 (Hyderabad)] and Rajni M Patel v. DCIT [43 ITR (Trib) 628 (Ahmedabad)]. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore urged that the denial of application of income by the Assessing Officer and its affirmation by the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and such an action needs to be reversed. 33. Ld. CIT,…

Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(2) E-33, Garib Society, N.S. Road No. 5 Room No. 419, 4Th Floor Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcd2841C

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Jyothi Laxmi Nayar
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…Shri Ram Bhagwandas Raheja v. Asstt. CIT [ITA (S&S) No.118/Mum/1996, Bench "B", Order dated 23rd September, 1998]. • Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1992] 42 TTJ (Del.) 644: [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Del.). • Kishenchand Shobhrajmal v. Asst. CIT [1992] 42 TTJ (Jp) 423: [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jp). • D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2001] 70 TTJ (Mumbai) 969: [2000] 72 ITD 340 (Mumbai). • Satnam Singh Chhabra v. DCIT [2002] 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976. • Amar Natvarlal Shah 68 TTJ 51G (All) Additions on the basis of loose papers not sustainable. Further Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (P&H) have held that if…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

DCIT, Ernakulam vs. Matha Enterprises, Angamally

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am &Shri George George K, Jm

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…sales turnover in liquor was suppressed only after Dec., 2006. In fact, the CIT(A) found that the Assessing officer had not taken any cognizance of this statement of the managing partner. The CIT(A) observed that the decisions of the ITAT, Jaipur, reported in 41 ITD 97 and of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Malwa United Wills Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &. Others 68 ITR 41 relied upon by the assessee were of much relevance to the issue wherein it was held that it was not open for an assessing authority to selectively take what was beneficial to the revenue and reject what was favourable to an assessee.…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…fficer (2004) 87 TTJ (JD) 615 91-92 16 Dr. Chetan Prakash Ranka v/s ITO (2005) 33 Tax World 72 (Jp.) 92-93 17 Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd. v/s DCIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Ahd) 131 93 18 Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 41 ITD 97 (Jp) 94 19 Smt. Purnima Beri v/s Dy. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 54 (Amritsar) 94-95 20 Ramakant Umashankar Khetan v/s ACIT (1999) 107 Taxmann (Magzine) 44 (Nagpur) 95 21 CIT v/s R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 179 (Raj.) 95-96 22 Jagdamba Rice mills v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 67 TTJ Chd) 838 96 23 Ashwani Kumar V/s Income Tax Officer (19…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ther material found either during the course of search or on investigation thereafter. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1997) 39 ITD 183 (Del) " Neena Syal’s (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chdd.) " Elite Developers Vs DCIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) " Addl. CIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) " Saif Ali Khan Mansurali Vs ACIT (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum) ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 23 Mukesh Garg " D. S. Agencies and Associates & Usha Distributors Vs Addl. CIT (2015) 44 ITR (Trib) 46 (Mum) 15. The…

Elite\nDevelopers v. DCIT (41 ITD 97) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax