GTC Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

60 TTJ 308Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#7979 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 147(a)violation of natural justicebogus ltcgcircular tradingrevision u/s 263section 234dpenny stocksection 10(38)bogus long term capital gainshort term capital gainsbest judgment assessment

Judgments citing GTC Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…pon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circ…

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in. section 23 (3) of the Act." 6.11. Further Hon'ble Murnbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in. section 23 (3) of the Act." 6.11. Further Hon'ble Murnbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in. section 23 (3) of the Act." 6.11. Further Hon'ble Murnbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in. section 23 (3) of the Act." 6.11. Further Hon'ble Murnbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…379/Bang/2020 department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…379/Bang/2020 department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ITA No.299/Bang/2019 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah N C Colony Near State Bank of Hyderabad ACIT Circle-1 Vs. Hospete 583 201 Bellary PAN NO : AAWPV6572E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Narayana K.R., D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed aga…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…pon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…pon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…pon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. 6.12. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circu…

SNEHALATHA SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 5.9. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT reported in (1998) 60 TTJ 308 , held that, where statement and report of third parties are only secondary and subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter connected with the quantum of addition, denial of opportunity to cross examine third parties did not amount to violation of natural justice. Therefore, each case has to be decided on facts and circumstanc…

ACIT 17 (3), MUMBAI vs. M/S RASHMI BEARING CO, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5732/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-17(3) बिधम/ M/S. Rashmi Bearing Co. Room No.122, 1St Floor, 115, Room No.7, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G- Block Nagdevi Street, Mumbai- Bkc, Mumbai-400051. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefr2683Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Restricting The Addition Made By The Ao To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition Made At 17.04% Of The Bogus Purchases, Ignoring That There Was No Compliance To The Notices Issued U/S 133(6) By Ao & The Assessee Was Also Unable To Prove The Genuineness Of The. Purchases Either, By Producing The Suppliers For Examination Or By Furnishing

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5732/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT-17(3) बिधम/ M/s. Rashmi Bearing Co. Room No.122, 1st Floor, 115, Room No.7, 2nd Floor Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G- Block Nagdevi Street, Mumbai- BKC, Mumbai-400051. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAEFR2683Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR) Assessee by: Shri Nitesh Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncem…

VIJAY B SHAH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO 17 (3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 667/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmavijay B Shah (Huf), Vs. I.T.O.-17(3)(5) Prop.- Of M/S Vijay Room No. 137, Aayakar Enterprises, 12A, Giriraj Bhavan, M.K. Road, Building, S.T. Road, Mumbai-400020 Carnac Bunder, Mumbai- 400009. Pan/Gir No. Aabhv 7438 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

…ax/VAT is not correct. 7 Vijay B Shah (HUF) Vs ITO In this regard, it is observed that the opportunity of cross examination may not be sacrosanct and fatal to the assessment as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in GTC INDUSTRIES LTD Vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380/60 TTJ 308(BOM). In the present appeal, at the cost of repetition it is observed that AO did not base his decision solely on the Sales Tax/VAT and came to an independent conclusion after due consideration of a myriad of factors and on account of the inability of the appellant to discharge the burden of proof cast on it. 6.17 It is a well-established positio…

GTC Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (60 TTJ 308) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax