Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

246 ITR 116High Court2000#2821 most cited

What is Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax authority for?

An audit report does not prevent the Assessing Officer from requesting documentary evidence to verify the genuineness of transactions.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Goodyear India Ltd. v. CIT · 246 ITR 116 · genuineness of transaction · documentary evidence · audit report · Assessing Officer powers · Section 145(3) · rejection of books

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)section 211wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dslump salesection 32(1)(ii)domestic companyfull value of consideration

Judgments citing Goodyear India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax

Gajanan Maharaj Urban Co-Op Bank, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalna Circle, Jalna

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1567/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 114Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.1567/PUN/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Gajanan Maharaj Urban The ACIT, Jalna Circle, Co.Op Bank, Vs Jalna. M/s.Shah Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near RTO, Pune – 411001. PAN: AAABS 0482 N Revenue Assessee Assessee by Shri Neelesh Khandelwal – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 11/07/2022 Date of pronouncemen…

Addl. CIT, Spl Rnage-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7435/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6281/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2119/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3816/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3210/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3209/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

…el./2014 & Ors. or feasibility of expansion of the business will not be allowable as deduction. Such expenditure is unmistakably connected with the running of the business." 4.2.5 Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Goodyear India Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 239 relied upon Jonas Woodhead and Sons (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224lTR 342 (SC) and concluded that it is now well settled that when expenditure is incurred for the expansion / extension or for the betterment of the product which was already being produced, and/or the improvisation made is part and parcel of the existing business, it is allowable a…

M/S. L.P.R. Construction, Allahabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 257/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad05 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. L.P.R. Construction V. Dcit Circle-1 15F/1A, Baghambari Gaddi, Allahabad-211001. Allahapur, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh- 211001. Tan/Pan: Aaifm8174H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, Ca Respondent By: Shri A.K. Singh, Cit ( Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, CIT ( Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 44A

…econdly the turnover has increased more than three times. He has relied upon the Judgement of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. 382 ITR 152 as well as Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. CIT 246 ITR 116. He has also relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. 6. The Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account of assessee by invoking the provision of Section 145(3) of the Act for want of supporting the evidence. After rejection of books of account,…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 25/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 24/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 23/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1512/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1511/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

ACIT Central Circle 3 (1), Chennai vs. Smt Sasikala Raghupathy L/H of Late B G Raghupathy, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1510/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

Bgr Energy Systems Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee for all assessment years are dismissed

ITA 116/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 23, 24, 25 & 116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Bgr Energy Systems The Acit, Ltd., V. Central Circle 3(1), Guna Complex 443, Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 118. Pan: Aabcg 2202J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Acit, Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, Central Circle 3(1), V. (L/H Of Late B.G. Chennai -34. Raghupathy) New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Co Nos.: 97, 98 & 99/Chny/2018 (In Ita Nos.1510, 1511 & 1512/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Smt. Sasikala Raghupathy, The Acit, (L/H Of Late B.G. V. Central Circle 3(1), Raghupathy) Chennai -34. New No.60, Old No.100, Iv Street, Abiramapuram, Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafpr 5779J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT

…l (Guj) 164 ITR 102 CIT Vs. Modi Stone Ltd (Del.) 203 Taxman 123 c. The broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s.44AB, the ITO should not insist upon production of records or vouchers or details cannot be laid down Goodyear India Ltd Vs. CIT(Del.) 246 ITR 116. d. Onus does not get discharged by mere filing of confirmation letters. United Commercial & Industrial Co. (P.) Ltd (187 ITR 596) (Cal) e.. Payments made by account payee cheques do not make the transactions sacrosanct- Onus not discharged. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd (208 ITR 465) (Cal.) f. Furnishing of IT assessment and PAN etc., is not suffi…

Nirpal Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2177/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sohil Malik, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…neither he has correlated the entries with the ledger for sale etc. There is no basis in the claim of Appellant that explanation was available in the cash book and the books of account are audited. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd., 246 ITR 116 (Del) have held that the broad proposition that once there is tax audit u/s 44AB, AO should not insist upon production of records or details cannot be laid down and merely because an audit report is available, there is no fetter on the power of Assessing Officer to require the Assessee to justify its claim with reference to records, materials and…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax-Range-1, Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 3/BIL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the Revenue Authorities is bound to look into the genuineness of the transaction in each of the case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax reported as 246 ITR 116 has held that even if there is an audit report filed by the assessee that does not prevent the Assessing Officer to ask for relevant documentary evidences and details from the assessee to check the genuineness of the transaction and the entire conduct of the assessee. In the present case before us, when the Assessing Officer called for relevant d…

Joint.Commissioner of Income Tax Range -I, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Bilaspur(Cg)

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 21/BIL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm Sl.

For Appellant: S/ShriAjitKorde, S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriR.K. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 220(2)

…depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the Revenue Authorities is bound to look into the genuineness of the transaction in each of the case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax reported as 246 ITR 116 has held that even if there is an audit report filed by the assessee that does not prevent the Assessing Officer to ask for relevant documentary evidences and details from the assessee to check the genuineness of the transaction and the entire conduct of the assessee. In the present case before us, when the Assessing Officer called for relevant d…