Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT

253 ITR 454High Court2002#663 most cited

What is Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of a statement or seized evidence that are favourable to the revenue while rejecting other parts favourable to the assessee without proper investigation; the evidence must be considered as a whole. Additions cannot be made based on mere presumptions or surmises without further inquiry.

150

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. · 253 ITR 454 · seized papers interpretation · selective acceptance of evidence · rejection of evidence · on money receipts · search assessment · AO duty to investigate · statement under Section 132(4)

Also reported as

119 Taxmann.com 813

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 68Section 132Section 44ADSection 37(1)Section 147Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 201(3)section 158baunexplained jewellerysection 150section 70section 69dbeyond four yearssection 18statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(6), Ahmedabad vs. Shree Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1416/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Shree Infrastructure, Ward 3(3)(6), Vs 104, Sarthak Complex, Next To Ahmedabad Fun Republic Cinema, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan : Abtfs 9550 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr Dr Assessee By : Shri P.M. Patel, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.03.2016 Whereby He Deleted The Additions Of Rs.1,58,36,330/- & Rs.60,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Disallowance On Account Of Cash Payments Towards Land Development Agreement Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Patel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr DR
Section 143(2)

…ubsequent independent inquiry. Affidavits are placed on record and the contents of the said affidavits have remained uncontroverted. The same were not disproved or found to be false. If that be so Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 has held that when affidavit was not controverted, it has to be taken as accepted. The appellant has been able to discharge its onus [63 TTJ 191 (Del.)] - Instrumed (India) International Vs. ITO and successfully shifted the burden to prove on revenues as has been held in [159 ITR 78 (SC)] - Orissa Corporation. The stand of appellant has support f…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…d as correct or rejected as a whole Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224: (2001) 252 TTR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros vs. Asstt. CIT (2995) 51 MI (Pune) 513: (1995)52 TD 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Lid vs CIT (2001) 170 CTR (G) 170 (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Gnj), Mehta Parikh & Co vs CIT (1956) 30 TR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (lm) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 (1999) 71 TD 245 (Pune) applied. First thing the AO has to prove is that it is the investment of the assessec. In other words, the ownership of the investment must be proved to be that of the assessee the one is on the Depart…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…d as correct or rejected as a whole Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224: (2001) 252 TTR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros vs. Asstt. CIT (2995) 51 MI (Pune) 513: (1995)52 TD 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Lid vs CIT (2001) 170 CTR (G) 170 (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Gnj), Mehta Parikh & Co vs CIT (1956) 30 TR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (lm) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 (1999) 71 TD 245 (Pune) applied. First thing the AO has to prove is that it is the investment of the assessec. In other words, the ownership of the investment must be proved to be that of the assessee the one is on the Depart…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…d as correct or rejected as a whole Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224: (2001) 252 TTR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros vs. Asstt. CIT (2995) 51 MI (Pune) 513: (1995)52 TD 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Lid vs CIT (2001) 170 CTR (G) 170 (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Gnj), Mehta Parikh & Co vs CIT (1956) 30 TR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (lm) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 (1999) 71 TD 245 (Pune) applied. First thing the AO has to prove is that it is the investment of the assessec. In other words, the ownership of the investment must be proved to be that of the assessee the one is on the Depart…

Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…d as correct or rejected as a whole Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Guj) 224: (2001) 252 TTR 417 (Guj), Kantilal Bros vs. Asstt. CIT (2995) 51 MI (Pune) 513: (1995)52 TD 412 (Pune), Glass Lines Equipment Co. Lid vs CIT (2001) 170 CTR (G) 170 (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Gnj), Mehta Parikh & Co vs CIT (1956) 30 TR 181 (SC) and Chander Mohan Mehta vs. Asstt. CIT (lm) (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 (1999) 71 TD 245 (Pune) applied. First thing the AO has to prove is that it is the investment of the assessec. In other words, the ownership of the investment must be proved to be that of the assessee the one is on the Depart…

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

…ettled law that the paper should be read as a whole. In the instant case the department has read the paper in the manner which suits to it and not considered the same in its entirety. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 253 ITR 454 (Guj.) Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. V/s CIT Interpretation of documents - Documents must be read as a whole. It is a well settled canon of interpretation that a document has to be read as a whole" it is not permissible to accept a part and ignore the rest of the document. 22 TW 684 Hissaria Brothers V/s ACIT (Jpr.) Held that the seized documen…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…s (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) retracted should be accepted as corrected. It has been held so by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Glasslines Equipments Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). 30. The Ld. A R for the assessee submits that copy of a statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was provided just one day before the passing of the assessment order, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…s (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) retracted should be accepted as corrected. It has been held so by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Glasslines Equipments Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). 30. The Ld. A R for the assessee submits that copy of a statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was provided just one day before the passing of the assessment order, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…s (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11) retracted should be accepted as corrected. It has been held so by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Gujarat High Court in the case of Glasslines Equipments Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). 30. The Ld. A R for the assessee submits that copy of a statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala was provided just one day before the passing of the assessment order, the statement of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Bhagchand Jain, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1271/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh ,u-ds-lSuh] mik/;{k ,oa Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1271/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 I.T.O., cuke Shri Bhagchand Jain, Vs. Ward-1(2), 52/24, Babu Mohalla, Ajmer. Kesarganj, Ajmer. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPJ 6311 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. No. 42/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 1271/JP/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Bhagchand Jain, cuke I.T.…

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)

…ee is justified in claiming that as income was taxed on the basis of statement even the application thereof must be granted on the basis of such statement. This view is further supported by the judgements in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. v. CIT [253 ITR 454 (Guj)], Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT [71 ITD 245 (Pune)], ACIT v. Vasantlal C. Mehta [77 ITD 76 (Rajkot)] & Ramanlal P. Chordia v. ACIT [87 TTJ (Pune) 713] relied on by the Assessee at the time of hearing. 40. We further find that it has been held in various judgements that in respect of such expenditure which is on account of search operation th…

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)

…ee is justified in claiming that as income was taxed on the basis of statement even the application thereof must be granted on the basis of such statement. This view is further supported by the judgements in the case of Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. v. CIT [253 ITR 454 (Guj)], Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT [71 ITD 245 (Pune)], ACIT v. Vasantlal C. Mehta [77 ITD 76 (Rajkot)] & Ramanlal P. Chordia v. ACIT [87 TTJ (Pune) 713] relied on by the Assessee at the time of hearing. 40. We further find that it has been held in various judgements that in respect of such expenditure which is on account of search operation th…

The DCIT(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shukan Builders, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…This clearly proves that the appellant did not make any purchases from the above parties. With due regard to ratio of judgments relied by the appellant the same are not applicable in the present case as the facts are different. In GlasslineEquipments vs. CIT 253 ITR 454(Guj) the issue is regarding part acceptance of part of the affidavit by the CIT(A) which is not the issue in the present case. Further in Mehta Parikh & Co vs. CIT 30 ITR 181(SC), the issue was regarding entries in the cash books which is not the issue in the present case. Further, in Krishan Textiles vs. CIT AY: 2010-11 310 ITR 227(Guj), the iss…

Shukan Builders, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…This clearly proves that the appellant did not make any purchases from the above parties. With due regard to ratio of judgments relied by the appellant the same are not applicable in the present case as the facts are different. In GlasslineEquipments vs. CIT 253 ITR 454(Guj) the issue is regarding part acceptance of part of the affidavit by the CIT(A) which is not the issue in the present case. Further in Mehta Parikh & Co vs. CIT 30 ITR 181(SC), the issue was regarding entries in the cash books which is not the issue in the present case. Further, in Krishan Textiles vs. CIT AY: 2010-11 310 ITR 227(Guj), the iss…

Sumit Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Accordingly, both these appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 5182/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishisummit Mittal, Vs. Dcit, C-691, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Addpm5322P (Appellant) (Respondent) Madhur Mittal, Vs. Dcit, C-691, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-22, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Addpm5322P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153A

…ored He further referred to the decision of the honourable Delhi High Court in CIT versus vatika Townships private limited in ITA number 1329/2010 dated 10/9/2010 and the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of Glass Lines Equipments Co Ltd versus CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454. k. The assessee further submitted that the observation of the learned CIT – A in holding that the remaining infrastructure or to sell the property at higher rate to compensate for rise of prices is devoid of any manner. TIDCO would have in fact lost Rs 29.75 crores, if such settlement would not have been made. He further referred to the several…

Late Vithaldas Khusaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Mali, L/H Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [Pan: Abopm 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, (In Short “The Cit (A)”) All Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 1998-99 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Navsari (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”). 2. Ground No.(I) & Ground No. (Ii) Regarding Reopening Of Assessment & Validity Of Assessment Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…that they have not paid any money over and above the document price. The AO has chosen not to examine them and therefore, what is mentioned in the affidavit has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on-money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on- Lat…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…is mentioned in the affidavit Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 33 of 34 has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), In such circumstances, such addition is not tenable in law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. 50. Ground No. (IV) relates to addition of on-money of Rs.1,00,854. 51. We have heard…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…is mentioned in the affidavit Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 33 of 34 has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), In such circumstances, such addition is not tenable in law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. 50. Ground No. (IV) relates to addition of on-money of Rs.1,00,854. 51. We have heard…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…is mentioned in the affidavit Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 33 of 34 has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), In such circumstances, such addition is not tenable in law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. 50. Ground No. (IV) relates to addition of on-money of Rs.1,00,854. 51. We have heard…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…is mentioned in the affidavit Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 33 of 34 has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), In such circumstances, such addition is not tenable in law. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee. 50. Ground No. (IV) relates to addition of on-money of Rs.1,00,854. 51. We have heard…