Glass Lines Equipments v. CIT

173 ITR 666High Court1988#9485 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 114B Section 115BBE Section 144 Section 147 Section 263 Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

on-money

Judgments citing Glass Lines Equipments v. CIT

YOGESHKUMAR HARISHBHAI MALI,SURAT vs. PCIT, SURAT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…ation but was sold in the subsequent year i.e., AY 2015-16 and hence, the question of taxing the on-money in AY 2014-15 does not arise. For this, he relied on the decisions in the cases of Ashaland Corporation (supra) and CIT vs. Motilal C. Patel & Co. (1988) 173 ITR 666 (Guj). He further submitted that the Department has also made huge additions f Rs.3,80,00,000/- in case of the assessee and other co-owners, as evident from ITA No.420/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali submission before the Ld. PCIT (page-4 of the PB). Since the additions made by the AO for the assessee and other co-owners are mor…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-4, SURAT vs. M/S SHREE NARAYAN CORPORATION, SURAT

ITA 107/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/S Shree Narayan Corporation, Central Circle- 4, Bl No. 85, Blue Bells, Near Vs. Surat. Vaishnodevi Township, Adajan, Surat. Pan No. Accfs 9265 P Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 132Section 133ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., M/s Shree Narayan Corporation, Central Circle- 4, BL No. 85, Blue Bells, Near Vs. Surat. Vaishnodevi Township, Adajan, Surat. PAN No. ACCFS 9265 P Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee Department represented by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Assessee represented by Shri P.M. Jagasheth, C.A. Date of hearing 06/10/2023 Date of pronouncement 31/10/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT vs. KUSH CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, grounds of cross objection raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Physical hearing) A.C.I.T., Kush Corporation, Central Circle-1, Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. Vs. Surat. No. 30, Block No. 111, Palanpor, Surat. PAN No. AALFK 7948 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee C.O. No. 01/Srt/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kush Corporation, A.C.I.T., Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. No.…

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

…Ahd Trib), Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  CIT Vs Padam Chand Ramgopal (1970) 76 ITR 719-SC,  CIT Vs Margdarsi Chit Funds (P) Ltd (1985 ) 155 ITR 442 (AP),  Glass Lines Equipments Vs CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj),  CIT Vs Motilal Patel & Co. (1988) 173 ITR 666 (Guj),  CIT Vs Ashaland Corporation (1982) !33 ITR55 (Guj),  ITO Vs Sidharath S Patel ( ITA No. 1852 & 1853/Ahd/2003),  PCIT Vs Marg Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 52(Madras),  CIT Vs Ani Kumar & Co (2016) 67 taxmann.com 278 (Kar),  CIT Vs Regional KisanGramin Bank (2014) 42 taxmann.com 578 (All),  CIT Vs UP State Food & Essential Commodities (I…

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

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

M/S. MAYUR CONSTRUCTION,,VALSAD vs. THE ACIT., VALSAD RANGE,, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1042/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 1042/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mayur Construction, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad. 110, Amar Chamber,Valsad. S [Pan: Aadfm 9859 L] . अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

…We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Ohm Developers (supra) Co-ordinate Bench has followed the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CITvs. MotilalC.Patel and Co. reportedat 173 ITR 666 (Guj.) and held that the amount of "on money" is to be accounted for in the year when sale deed is executed by observing as follows: 5.4. In the case in hand, the admitted position is that during the course of search, certain documents were seized. On the basis of the documents, the AO observed that the total price related to the sale of flats wa…

DCIT, CIRCLE -10(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. CHARANSHEELA ADVISORY PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) [Virtual Court Hearing] Assessment Years: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Kolkata……...........….……....………....Appellant Vs. M/S. Charansheela Advisory Pvt. Ltd...........................................................……………….…....Respondent 72/2, Sarat Bose Road Opp. Lansdown Kolkata – 700 025 [Pan : Aaccc 4291 J] Appearances By: Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 15Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 17Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’ble Judicial Member) [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] Assessment Years: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Kolkata……...........….……....………....Appellant Vs. M/s. Charansheela Advisory Pvt. Ltd...........................................................……………….…....Respondent 72/2, Sarat Bose Road Opp. Lansdown Kolkata – 700 025 [PAN : AACCC 4291 J] Appearances by: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT D/R, appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Advocat…

M/S. JAY KESAR BHAVANI DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ITOI,WD.1(3), SURAT

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

ITA 1196/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1196/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Jay Kesar Bhavani V. Income Tax Officer, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(3) Surat A-48,Kesar Kunj, Shri Bhulabhai Desai Marg, Laxmikant Ashram Road Katargam Surat 395004 Pan:Aabcj 6278 P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143Section 145(3)Section 80I

…of other units where there are no such evidences. The learned counsel for the assessee further relied on the judgement in the case of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V. Ashland Corporation 133 ITR 55 and in CIT v. Motilal C Patel & Company 173 ITR 666 wherein it laid down that it is settled law that no addition can be made purely based on statement recorded during survey. The learned counsel for the assessee further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Panna Corporation [Tax Appeal No. 323 and 325 of 200 dated 16.06.2012] 74 DTR 89, wherein it was he…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHARUCH vs. MANSI REALTY PVT. LTD., BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 540/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.540/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner Vs. M/S. Mansi Realty Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Garden City, Nr. Gidc, Behind Bharuch – 392 001. Momaina Nagar, Kosamdi, Valia Road, Ankleshwar, Dist-Bharuch, Bharuch – 393 002. [Pan: Aagcm 6053 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 10.12.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: 13.12.2019

Section 131Section 133ASection 143

…fter taking into consideration of various decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and other High Court as well as tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V. Ashland Corporation 133 ITR 55 and in CIT v. Motilal C Patel & Company 173 ITR 666 held that it is settled law that no addition no addition can be made purely based on statement recorded during survey. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT 10. V. Panna Corporation [Tax Appeal No. 323 and 325 of 200 dated 16.06.2012] 74 DTR 89 held that it has been consistently held by this court and some other courts have…

ITO 28(3)(4), NAVI MUMBAI vs. VARSHA ENTEPRISES, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part

ITA 4649/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Miss Mahua Sarkar

Section 144Section 44A

…to a builder or developer only when transaction of sale is complete and any advances received under the agreement for sale are mere earnest money and cannot be taxed as income before the transaction of sale is complete. [CIT u. Motilal C. Patel & Co., (1988) 173 ITR 666 (Guj)] Transaction is complete for a builder only when a unit proposed to be sold under an agreement for possession is handed over. Till such time, even if the builder has right to collect advance payments in terms of agreement for sale, they are advances and the same cannot be appropriated as income till the transaction is complete by at least h…