Estee Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

146 ITR 368High Court1984#14975 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Estee Exports (P.) Ltd. v. ITO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD vs. M/S. SHYAM TRADING COMPANY,, BEED

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2529/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

…the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the stock statements furnished to the bank cannot be overlooked placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Estee Exports (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO, 31 taxmann.com 70. (ii) Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal vs. CIT, 146 ITR 368. (iii) Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 95 ITR 375. (iv) Dhansiram Agarwalla vs. CIT, 201 ITR 192. 4. However, the ld. CIT(A) had granted relief to the assessee by directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the value shown in the stock statements furnished to the bank in its entirety and not to ignore the negative stock of the cotton…

M/S. SHYAM TRADING COMPANY,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2, BEED

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…The Ld.Pr.CIT relied on the following decisions to hold that undisclosed stock required to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. i) Sanjayson of Dwarakadas Jajoo Vs. CIT (2006) 154 Taxmann 101 (MP) ii) Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on excess…

DECCAN TOBACCO COMPANY,GUNTUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…d stock required to be taxed as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. i) Sanjayson of Dwarakadas Jajoo Vs. CIT (2006) 154 Taxmann 101 (MP) 4 I.T.A. No139/Viz/2020, A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur ii) RamanlalKacharulalTejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 2.2. Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on e…

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , MORBI vs. M/S. DEV COTTON & OIL INDUSTRIES, , AT. SARAYA, LATIPAR ROAD, TAL. TANKARA, DIST. MORBI

In the results, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed,

ITA 230/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.230/Rjt/2018 With C.O. No.23/Rjt/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15) I.T.O, बनाम/ M/S.Dev Cotton & Oil Ward-1, Industries, Vs. Morbi. Saraya, A/P Latipar, Tal. Tankara, Morbi, "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfd7010L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Sr. D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 25/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & C.O Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Dated 20/03/2018, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 26/12/2016 Relevant To Assessment Year (A.Y) 2014-15. Assessee Has Filed C.O Bearing No.23/Rjt/2018 In Ita No.230/Rjt/2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. With C.O. No.23/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2014-15 The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Desai, A.R

…hus allowing a relief of Rs. 6,58,839/- on this count. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kacharalal Tejmal v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 368 (Bom) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the addition made on the basis of information received from the bank regarding stock placed with it which was more in quantity then what was reflected in the income-tax return. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the decision of Hon'…

MADAN MOHAN ENGINEERING & HARDWARE,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 24(2), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 181/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Madan Mohan Engineering & Hardware.................................…………………...Appellant Bhanderhati, Dhaniakhali, Hooghly – 712 301. [Pan: Aajfm 9702 A] Ito, Ward 24(2) Hooghly...................……………………………………………..................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101. Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Chatterjee, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 29, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 28.07.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 10,00,890/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Difference In Valuation Of Stock As Reflected In The Accounts Of The Assessee & As Shown In The Stock Statement Submitted To The Bank.

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ther on facts nor on law the assessee’s explanation is acceptable, as the alleged practice cannot be given judicial notice. Reliance is placed upon Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 375 (Mad), Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal V. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 368 and Dhansiram Agarwala V. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 192 (Gau). 5.2. In this context the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of “Coimbatore Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. V. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 375 (Mad) is mentioned. The Hon’ble High Court observed that the alleged practice said to be followed by business houses of declaring larger…