Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

225 ITR 746Supreme Court of India1997#130 most cited

What is Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income is not taxable until it actually accrues or is received; hypothetical income, based on a mere claim not yet settled, is not chargeable to tax.

514

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT · income accrual · hypothetical income · actual receipt · unconfirmed claims · income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(3)Section 37(1)Section 142(2A)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 10(31a)section 100section 76undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 142(2c)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 153b(1)(b)section 201(3)section 158basection 153b(1)rectification under section 154

Judgments citing Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Satish Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

ITA 843/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. Even the assessee signed blank return and his counsel filed his return by showing fake income could not constitute real income. The assessee rely upon following Supreme Court judgment (i) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102 (ii) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. 225 ITR 746 2. The assessee on statement on oath clearly state that he has not having agriculture land and any capital assets and his income is only 3,000/- to 4,000/- in a month. A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.2,72,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That Ld. A.O. ignored the return filed by the assessee in response to notic…

Sh. Satish Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

ITA 1025/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…. Even the assessee signed blank return and his counsel filed his return by showing fake income could not constitute real income. The assessee rely upon following Supreme Court judgment (i) State Bank of Travancore 158 ITR 102 (ii) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. 225 ITR 746 2. The assessee on statement on oath clearly state that he has not having agriculture land and any capital assets and his income is only 3,000/- to 4,000/- in a month. A.O. has not justified in making addition of Rs.2,72,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/- u/s 68 of I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That Ld. A.O. ignored the return filed by the assessee in response to notic…

Mill Consultants & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2792/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri D. Prabhakar Reddy
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)

…- on open derivative contracts, i.e., by marking them to market as at the year-end (31.3.2008). The assessee, in justification, based it’s case on the principle of real income, relying on the decisions in the case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1997] 225 ITR 746 (SC); CIT vs. Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. [1973] 89 ITR 266 (SC); R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala vs. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570; Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC); CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas and Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC); and H. M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706 (Bom). Reliance was also placed on the Accounting St…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3947/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…to be taxed, has to be real income and not a notional income and concept of accrual of income can be applied only to the real income as laid down in the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. Vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee- company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter is considered in this light, it is not possible t…

M/S National Fertilizer Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for all the Assessment Years

ITA 3520/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 145Section 37(1)

…to be taxed, has to be real income and not a notional income and concept of accrual of income can be applied only to the real income as laid down in the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity Company Ltd. Vs CIT (1997) 225 ITR 746. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee- company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter is considered in this light, it is not possible t…

Universal Industrial Fund Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, C Ircle- 6, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2007-08

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Universal Industrial Fund V/s. DCIT, Circle-6, P7, Ltd. (in the matter of Chowringhee Square, Hilltop Holdings India Kolkata-700 069 Ltd. since amalgamated) 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Klkkata-700 001 [PAN No.AAACU 4032 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri D.S.Damle, FCA Shri Sallong Yaden ACIT,SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-04-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 27-05-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/…

Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2862/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: S/Shri Sandeep Jhanwar and Hitendra Bhandari –AR.sFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Bare-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…hat the AO had not discussed the interest on doubtful advance in the assessment order,that when the principle itself was doubtful of recovery the question of realisation of interest could not arise.The assessee relied upon the case of Godhara Electricity Ltd.(225 ITR 746) and argued that hypothetical income could not be brought to tax even though the assessee company was following mercantile system of accounting,that notional interest on doubtful advances could neither be accounted for nor could be assessed as income of the assessee, that it was in the business of finance and had given the loan in its normal cour…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Big Bags Inernational Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1041/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd. No.61, Nadakerappa Industrial Estate, Viswadeepam Post, Peenya, … Respondent Bangalore-560091. Pan:Aabcb 4004 D

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.V.Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd. No.61, Nadakerappa Industrial Estate, Viswadeepam Post, Peenya, … Respondent Bangalore-560091. PAN:AABCB 4004 D Appellant by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR) Respondent by : Shri S.V.Ravishankar, Advocate Date of hearing : 06/04/2016 Date of pronouncement : 06/05/2016 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed again…

Monica G. Khatri, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 252/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh.B.R. Baskaran & Sh. Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Monika G Khatri I.T.O Ward No. 19(3)3 6A, Girnar Apartments, 55, Pali Mumbai Hills,, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400050 Pan No. Ahzpk5922D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh.Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Sh.Naveen Gupta –DR
Section 2(47)Section 94

…ITA No. 252/M/2014 Monika Khatri IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SH.B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Monika G Khatri I.T.O Ward No. 19(3)3 6A, Girnar Apartments, 55, Pali Mumbai Hills,, Bandra Vs. Mumbai-400050 PAN No. AHZPK5922D (Appellant) (Respondent) Representation of parties Assessee by : Sh.Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Sh.Naveen Gupta –DR Date of hearing : 18.01.2016 Date of Order : 03.05.2016 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH JM 1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Appeals-18 dat…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…gineering Projects (P) Ltd. (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 73 : (1993) 202 ITR 1014) (Del); (14) CIT vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 67 : (2000) 245 ITR 823 (Bom); (15) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 564 : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC); (16) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC); (17) Union of India & Anr. vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 81 : (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC); (18) CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); (19) CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC); (20) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. vs. Jt. CIT (T…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…gineering Projects (P) Ltd. (1993) 109 CTR (Del) 73 : (1993) 202 ITR 1014) (Del); (14) CIT vs. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. (2001) 165 CTR (Bom) 67 : (2000) 245 ITR 823 (Bom); (15) Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 564 : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC); (16) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC); (17) Union of India & Anr. vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 81 : (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC); (18) CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); (19) CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC); (20) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. vs. Jt. CIT (T…

Nisha B Patra, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1270/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

Karan P. Batra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

Premkumar T Batra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8438/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Chaturbhuj T. Batra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8157/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai vs. Varshan Batra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8130/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 18 &19, Mumbai vs. Premkumar T. Batra, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 8129/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…

Chaturbhuj T Batra, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7773/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amit Shukla, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.7773/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Chaturbhuj T Batra, Asstt.Commissioner Of Income 302, Pinnacle Tower, Tax Central Circle 18 & 19, Vs. 3Rd & 9Th Floor, Tps-Iii, Aayakar Bhavan, Khar (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400052 Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.8157/Mum/2010 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08) बनाम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Chaturbhuj T Batra, Income Tax- 302, Pinnacle Tower, Vs. 3Rd Floor, 9Th Road, Tps-Iii, Central Circle 18 & 19, Khar (W), Room No.401, Mumbai-400052 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Aabpb3512F

Section 132

…Ltd to the assessees herein was furnished to the AO and the assessing officer has not brought any material above that mentioned in the statement. By placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godhra Electricity company (225 ITR 746)(SC), the Ld A.R contended that the assessing officer could assess only the real income has accrued or received or deemed to have been accrued or received. He submitted that the assessing officer has not brought any material to show that the income stated in the proforma invoices has accrued to the assessees herein. 12. Thus, we notice that the…