Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT

316 ITR 260High Court2009#3734 most cited

What is Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An earlier statement or entry can be shown to be erroneous, but if it has not been proved to be incorrect, the Tribunal is justified in holding it to be valid. A statement under section 133A, while not equivalent to a statement under section 132(4) in evidentiary value, is not irrelevant and cannot be disregarded.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT · section 132(4) · section 133A · retraction of statement · evidentiary value · irrelevancy · Tribunal decision

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)mlisection 158bbprincipal officersection 194jsection 192block periodon-moneysection 40(a)(i)loose paperssection 44a

Judgments citing Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 171/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…this case in as much as the non-deduction of TDS on the interest amount of Rs.58,39,706/- is an admitted fact by the assessee, whereas, as per discussion in para no.9 to 12 in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ester Industrie Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Del.), the fact was that the addition in the said case had been made by the AO in view of the fact the assessee had itself made such disallowances in its original and revised return of income. In the said case, referring to the fact that the observations made by the tax audit report could not have formed the basis of additions/disallowances made…

KSHIPRA DHAWAN,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/DDN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

…this case in as much as the non-deduction of TDS on the interest amount of Rs.58,39,706/- is an admitted fact by the assessee, whereas, as per discussion in para no.9 to 12 in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ester Industrie Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Del.), the fact was that the addition in the said case had been made by the AO in view of the fact the assessee had itself made such disallowances in its original and revised return of income. In the said case, referring to the fact that the observations made by the tax audit report could not have formed the basis of additions/disallowances made…

RAJIV KUMAR TIWARI,SAHARANPUR vs. DCIT-ACIT- CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/DDN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19 Rajiv Kumar Tiwari, Acit, Central Circle, A-7, Awas Vikas, Dehradun, Income Tax Office, 52/1, Delhi Road, Vs Rajpur Road, Dehradun Saharanpur, Uttarakhand-248001 Uttar Pradesh-247001 Pan-Adfpt9463L Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 44A

…distinguishable in this case in as much as the non-deduction of TDS on the interest paid is an admitted fact by the assessee, whereas, as per discussion in para no.9 to 12 in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ester Industrie Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Del.), the fact was that the addition in the said case had been made by the AO in view of the fact the assessee had itself made such disallowances in its original and revised return of income. In the said case, referring to the fact that the observations made by the tax audit report could not have formed the basis of additions/disallowances made…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…entic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the\ncircumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon.\n7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18\n(SC) and Ester Industries Limited (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the\nassessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to\nbe erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the\nearlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the\nMadras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…entic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the\ncircumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon.\n7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18\n(SC) and Ester Industries Limited (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the\nassessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to\nbe erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the\nearlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the\nMadras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…entic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the\ncircumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon.\n7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18\n(SC) and Ester Industries Limited (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the\nassessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to\nbe erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the\nearlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the\nMadras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…entic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the\ncircumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon.\n7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18\n(SC) and Ester Industries Limited (2009) 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the\nassessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to\nbe erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the\nearlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the\nMadras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the…

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…authentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon. 7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Pruduce Co.(1973) 91 ITK. 18 (SC) and Ester budustries Limited 20091 316 ITR 260 (Delhil relied upon by the assessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S Khader Khan Son 2008 300 ITR 157, we are of the view t…

J C HOME TEX,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 7, JAIPUR

ITA 292/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…uthentic contemporaneous evidence of agricultural income. In the circumstances, the statement of the assessee could certainly be acted upon. 7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) and Ester Industries Limited [2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157. we are of the view…

DCIT, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 216/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

….3. Bachittar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2010] 328ITR400 (Punjab & Haryana) 15 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 “7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.[1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) and Ester Industries Limited[2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157 , we are of the vie…

M/S MAHESH CHANDRA VISHNU CHANDRA SARRAF,ALLAHABAD vs. ACCT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 199/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

….3. Bachittar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2010] 328ITR400 (Punjab & Haryana) 15 I.T.A. No. 199/Alld/2016, & C.O. No. 34/Alld/2016 “7. As regards the judgments in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.[1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) and Ester Industries Limited[2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi) relied upon by the assessee, even though it may be open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157 , we are of the vie…

THE PANOPAT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1109/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…sessee, in connection of these two appeals, also placed reliance on the following precedents; (i) CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) (ii) Tin Box Co. vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 9SC) (iii) Ester Industries Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Delhi High Court) (v) CIT vs Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 205 CTR 444 (Allahabad High Court) (vi) Anna Maria Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA 2165/Del/2003 (Delhi -Tribunal) [(2005) 95 ITJ Delhi 71]. Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos.1108 and 1109 /Del/2018 The Panipat C…

THE PANOPAT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PANIPAT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 1108/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

…sessee, in connection of these two appeals, also placed reliance on the following precedents; (i) CIT vs Bilahari Investment (P.) Ltd. [2008] 299 ITR 1 (Supreme Court) (ii) Tin Box Co. vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 9SC) (iii) Ester Industries Ltd. vs CIT [2009] 316 ITR 260 (Delhi High Court) (iv) CIT vs. Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 374 (Delhi High Court) (v) CIT vs Pancham Dass Jain [2006] 205 CTR 444 (Allahabad High Court) (vi) Anna Maria Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA 2165/Del/2003 (Delhi -Tribunal) [(2005) 95 ITJ Delhi 71]. Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos.1108 and 1109 /Del/2018 The Panipat C…

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…uently retracted. He further submitted that it was open to the person who made an admission to show that the admission was incorrect. For this proposition he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court titled Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 316 ITR 260/185 Taxman 266 (Delhi). However, that case was not one of search and seizure u/s 132 of the said Act. Furthermore, in the present case no material has been produced by the appellant/assessee to show that the admission made by him was incorrect in any way. On the other hand, it is the assessee who is insisting that it is for the department to corr…

SH. SANDEEP AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2963/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Sandeep Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, C/o- M/s. RRA Taxindia, Central Circle, D-28, South Extension, Ghaziabad Part-I, New Delhi PAN :ABPPA7461A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Respondent by Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT (DR) Date of hearing 08.07.2021 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This Appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31/03/2017 p…

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)

…ow cause notice regarding the same to enable the assessee a reasonable opportunity to set out its case. Reliance was placed on Tin Box Co. v. CIT [249 ITR 216 (SC)], Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. v. CIT [219 ITR 721 (Gujarat)] and Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT [316 ITR 260 (Delhi)]. Referring to the respective orders it was stated that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld.CIT(A) have denied the fact that the expenditure was actually incurred by the Assessee for the on-going Prabhadevi project. It was submitted that the said approach was also correct in view of the fact that neither any undisclosed cash was foun…

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)

…ow cause notice regarding the same to enable the assessee a reasonable opportunity to set out its case. Reliance was placed on Tin Box Co. v. CIT [249 ITR 216 (SC)], Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. v. CIT [219 ITR 721 (Gujarat)] and Ester Industries Ltd. v. CIT [316 ITR 260 (Delhi)]. Referring to the respective orders it was stated that neither the Assessing Officer nor the Ld.CIT(A) have denied the fact that the expenditure was actually incurred by the Assessee for the on-going Prabhadevi project. It was submitted that the said approach was also correct in view of the fact that neither any undisclosed cash was foun…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2), HYDERABAD vs. PRAJAY ENGINEERS SYNDICATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1644/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…at in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia, in Tax Appeal No. 691 of 2017, dt. 18-09-2017; ii. Chhat Mull Agarwal Vs. CIT (P&H HC) [116 ITR 694]; :- 9 -: iii. Gauri Sahay Ghisaram Vs. CIT [120 ITR 338] (All HC); iv. Ester Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT [316 ITR 260) (Del HC); v. CBDT Instructions No. 08/2011, dt. 11-08-2011; vi. Abdul Hameed Khan Vs. CIT [63 ITR 738) (AP-HC); 9. Considered the rival submissions and material on record. We notice that subsequent to survey operations, the genuineness of the purchases of Tar and Steel etc., from some of the concerns at Mumbai were questionable and in order to…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRADDHA CONSTRUCTIONS & POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ot assess merely on that basis and has to consider its liability in the light of other circumstances de hors the admission made by him in the return. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the other judgment in the case of Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 316 ITR 260 (Delhi). According to this judgment, suo moto disallowance leading to increased returned income can always be verified by the AO in the assessment and decrease the returned income, even if it falls below the amount of total income returned by the assessee in the return of income. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court restored the matter for such v…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…t assess merely on that basis and has to consider its liability in the light of other circumstances de hors the admission made by him in the return. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the other judgment in the case of Ester Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 316 ITR 260 (Delhi). According to this judgment, suo moto disallowance leading to increased returned income can always be verified by the AO in the assessment and decrease the returned income, even if it falls below the amount of total income returned by the assessee in the return of income. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court restored the matter for such v…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2