How many judgments cite Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT?

136 judgments on BharatTax cite Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT (247 ITR 290), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 145(3), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 144.

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT

247 ITR 290High Court2001#751 most cited

What is Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT authority for?

Income deemed under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Income-tax Act is a distinct category, separate from regular heads of income under Section 14, and losses from other heads, including business losses, cannot be set off against such deemed income.

136

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

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT · 247 ITR 290 · Section 68 · Section 69 · Section 115BBE · Section 71 · deemed income · unexplained investments · set off of losses · business loss set off

Also reported as

120 Taxmann 11

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 145(3)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 153D

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 155bbe section 69d section 66 set off of losses section 40(b)section 155 section 69b survey under section 133a preponderance of probability profits and gains of business or profession section 115bb section 115b

Judgments citing Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT

DCIT, Chennai vs. S Valamathi, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Adv

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…ade u/s 69 as unexplained investment separately in the computation of total income and no deduction is permissible against the income offered under this head. This view is upheld by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan vs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 and the Chattisgarh High court in Dhanush General Stores vs. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 651. Hence this amount of Rs.2,46,66,430/- is added as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the addition is u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 Section 115BBE comes into play and the said amount is taxed accordingly. " 13. The Assessing Officer also…

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…Rs.54.36 lacs for the assessment year under consideration. The loss available wrth assessee for set-off is Rs.54.36 lacs against income assessed if any. C)A.O. followed decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan reported at 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) for denial of set off of loss against income assessed. D)Decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan explained/distinguished in subsequent IT . : 5 of same court in the case of Radhe Developers India Ltd. reported at 329 ITR 0001 and Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mill (P) Ltd. reported at 291 Taxman 279 (Guj.).…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, Valsad

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

…on amount in the form of excess stock found during the survey and not recorded in the books of account has to be treated as income from undisclosed sources on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Faqir Mohammad Haji Hasan vs. CIT 247 ITR 290. The AO stated that in the said case of Faqir Mohammad, the Hon'ble High Court held that in cases where the nature of source if investment made by the assessee or nature of source of acquisition of Money Bullion etc. owned by the assessee or the source of expenditure incurred by the assessee are not explained at all or not satisfactorily explaine…

M/S. Shubh Enterprise, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

…Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v.S.K.Srigiri and Bros.(2008) 298 ITR 13 (Karn). The decision of this Court in the case of Fakir Mohmmed Haji Hasan v. CIT 247 ITR 290 (Guj) was distinguished on facts. On behalf of the Revenue, counsel submitted that the Tribunal committed grave error. The Commissioner exercised powers under section 263 of the Act giving cogent reasons and remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. Such order ought not to have been disturbed. Counsel further…

Oberoi Motors, Ambala Cantt vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and for statistical purpose

ITA 3512/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 133ASection 147

…e Infracity Developers Private Limited in ITA No. 1087 /Del/ 2018 order dated 5/3/2021. 5. Ld. DR submitted that the learned Assessing Officer placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court High Court in the case of Fakir Muhamed Haji Hasan vs. CIT 247 ITR 290 and the deletion of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Kim Pharma in ITA No. 106 of 2011 dated 27.04 2011. She further submitted that in Kushi Ram (supra) it was held that it is not necessary that the surrendered amount is from business income. She therefore submits that the orders of the authorities below are justified…

Sh. Maninder Singh Cheema, Hoshiarpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed

ITA 702/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meenai.T.A. No. 702/Asr/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133A

…t allowing the benefit of the business losses determined against the said deemed income. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed." 6. The Tribunal had relied upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 Taxman 11. In that case, interpreting the scope and describing the scheme of ss. 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the Act, it was observed : 9 "The scheme of ss. 69, 69A, 69B and 69C of the IT Act, 1961, would show that in cases where the nature and source of investments made by the assessee or the nature and source of acquisition of money, bu…

M/S Colour Roof(India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2438/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Yagnesh DesaiFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 115BSection 14Section 154Section 68

…in section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Hon'ble Courts have held that due to this factual and statutory fact such income does not quality for corresponding deductions which are applicable to various heads of income. (i) Fakir Mohd. Haji Hasan v/s CIT (247 ITR 290 (GUJ) (ii) Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. V/s ACIT [32 ITR 712] (Cochin Trib.) (iii) Dulari Digital Photo Services (P) Ltd. V/s CIT [38 Taxman 390] (Punj. & Haryana) Following these rulings needless to mention it is provided beyond iota of doubt that this issue is not only debatable issue but in some of the court ruling it is provided that no set off c…

Shanti Enterprise, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Hq) -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 271/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shanti Enterprises, Vs. The Dcit (Hq)-1, Millenium Textile Market, Shop Surat. No.1013-14, Umarwada, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfs5217L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Vepari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.271/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shanti Enterprises, Vs. The DCIT (HQ)-1, Millenium Textile Market, Shop Surat. No.1013-14, Umarwada, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALFS5217L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Vepari, CA Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 17/03/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L.…

Shilpraj Developers Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2608/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 2608/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle- 4, Vs. 12, Suryakiran Apartment, Ghod-Dod Surat. Road, Surat-395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3045H (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 71

…as an Unexplained Investment in form of unaccounted receivables. The assessing officer relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Fakir Assessment Years.2008-09 Shilpraj Developers Pvt. Ltd. Mohmod Haji Hasan V/s CIT (2001)(247 ITR 290)(Guj) and made the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act. 8. Since the assessee has not proved that the undisclosed income of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was earned out of business activities, therefore assessing officer treated the income disclosed during the course of survey as an undisclosed Income under the head "Income of Undisclose…

ITO, Ward- 40(1), New Delhi vs. Purshotam Ispat, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5564/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5564/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs Purshotam Ispat, Ward-40(1), Nd-4, Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaifp1640H

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Apoorv Bhardwaj, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 11SSection 68Section 69

…such incomes. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd Vs CIT (ITA No. 195/2014 dated 19.08.2015), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Hasan Vs CIT(2001) [247 ITR 290], Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in case of ITO Vs Dulari Digital Photo Services Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 984/Chd/2010) and Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle Vs M/s Shree Karthik Papers Ltd (ITA No. 325/Mds/2015 A.V. 2006-07 dated 06.04.2016) has held that income assessed u/s 68 does not fall under no…

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

…ained 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 stock required to be brought to tax @60% and quantified the excess stock at Rs.4,91,13,985/- as under : “8.6…

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

…. 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 excess stock of Rs.7,60,53,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against which the assessee is in appeal before thi…

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1293/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 69C

…round of appeal of assessee is dismissed in view of following position of law and facts of the case :- a) The correct position of law as per various expositions by various high courts including Gujarat H.C.[in case of Fakir Mohammed Haji Hasan V/s CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290(Guj)] and Punjab & Haryana High Court[in case of Dulari Digital Photo Services P.Ltd V/s CIT (2013) 219 Taxman 216 (Punjab & Haryana)] is that additions made u/s 68 & 69C are 'deemed income' and do not fall under any specific head of income. b) As per newly introduced section 115BBE introduced by Finance Act 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013, no deduction…

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1537/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1535, 1536 & 1537 /Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai V The Income Tax Officer, Gabani, S Ward-3(2)(5), Surat. Bunglaw No.2, Ila Park Society, . Katargam Road, Surat. [Pan: Aazpg 7839 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri P.M.Jagasheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2020 उ"घोषणाक"तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 14.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: 1. These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Surat Dated 27.03.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 201-12 Respectively.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ct cannot be denied……..” 14. We have also considered the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in para no.11 and page 7 of the order of ld.AO has held as under: ". .................... The decisions of this court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj.) Krishna Textiles [2009] 310 ITR 227 (Guj.) are neither relevant nor germane to the issue considering the fact that in none of the decisions the legislative scheme emanating from the conjoint reading of the provisions of section 14 and 56 of the Act have been considered. The apex court in the case of D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur P. Ltd. [2005]…

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1536/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Shri Rajeshkumar Popatbhai Gabani, Surat vs. The ITO, Ward-3(2)(5)., Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Cyza Chem Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1 (1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1784/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R. S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 69B

…assessee and affirmed the Assessing Officer’s decision of treating the said undisclosed income/surrendered income as ‘income from other sources’. In the process, the CIT(A) relied on various judicial pronouncements such as (i) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT, 247 ITR 290 (Guj-HC); and (ii) ACIT vs. Ratan Industries (P.) Ltd., 143 TTJ 24 (Agra – TM). These decisions are relevant for the proposition that such surrendered income discovered from the search action u/s 133A and section 132 of the Act are required to be taxed as deemed income under the head ‘income from other sources’. No benefit of set off should be al…

M/S. Neptune Associates, Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 2907/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2907/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, CIT.D.R

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…Associates vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2014-15 - 6 - 7.3 The learned AR submitted that the Revenue authorities have proceeded on misconception of law and have wrongly applied observations of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan vs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 (Guj). 7.4 To buttress its stand of allowability of expenditure against income declared in survey, the assessee referred to the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act substituted by Taxation Laws (second amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. AY 2017-18 AY 2017-18. It was pointed out that in view of substituted provisions of Section 115BBE(2) of the Act,…

Uma Cotton & Oil Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Range-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 13/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rjt/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…s the Assessing Officer to frame consequential, assessment afresh thereby revising earlier assessment order accepting the above two expenditure heads. We notice that hon'ble jurisdictional high court had earlier held in Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) that any addition made u/s. 69 to 69c of the Act would not be available for a corresponding deduction under any other provision. It reiterated the same view in Krishna Textiles vs. CIT (2009) 310 ITR 227 (Guj). Their lordships thereafter distinguished the said case law in DCIT VS. Radhe Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR l(Guj) after hold…

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Lalbaba Seamless Tubes Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.58/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DRFor Respondent: None

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)Section 68Section 71

…ks of accounts, with certain cash entries reflected as income from commodities , no description as to the source, identity, etc. were put on record. The Kerala High Court relying on the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Fakir Mohd. Haji Hassan vs C1T 247 ITR 290 (2001) disallowed the set off of business losses with the unexplained profit from commodities. In the case of Fakir Mohd. Haji Hassan vs CIT 247 ITR 290 (2001) the matter related to disallowance of deduction for confiscation of gold by Custom Authorities and the trading loss thereon due to confiscation claimed by the assessee was not allowed by t…