(i) CIT v. President Industries

362 ITR 410Reported decision#24668 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2020.

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. President Industries

DCIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 4287/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…38. For the proposition that entire unaccounted sales cannot be added to income but only the net profit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. President Industries 124Taxman.com 654; (ii) CIT v. Sameer Synthetics Mill 362 ITR 410; (iii) CIT v. Leo Formulation Pvt. Ltd. 48 Taxmann.com 328; (iv) CIT v. Bahubali Neminath Muttin 72 Taxmann.com 139 (v) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal) 156 Taxmann.40. 39. So far as the observation of the CIT(A) that the assessee did not produce any material in support of its contention that undisclosed income of Rs.1.85 crore voluntarily declar…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 2801/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…38. For the proposition that entire unaccounted sales cannot be added to income but only the net profit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. President Industries 124Taxman.com 654; (ii) CIT v. Sameer Synthetics Mill 362 ITR 410; (iii) CIT v. Leo Formulation Pvt. Ltd. 48 Taxmann.com 328; (iv) CIT v. Bahubali Neminath Muttin 72 Taxmann.com 139 (v) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal) 156 Taxmann.40. 39. So far as the observation of the CIT(A) that the assessee did not produce any material in support of its contention that undisclosed income of Rs.1.85 crore voluntarily declar…

Amq Agro India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 169/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Pramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

…38. For the proposition that entire unaccounted sales cannot be added to income but only the net profit, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- (i) CIT v. President Industries 124Taxman.com 654; (ii) CIT v. Sameer Synthetics Mill 362 ITR 410; (iii) CIT v. Leo Formulation Pvt. Ltd. 48 Taxmann.com 328; (iv) CIT v. Bahubali Neminath Muttin 72 Taxmann.com 139 (v) CIT v. Aggarwal Engg. Co. (Jal) 156 Taxmann.40. 39. So far as the observation of the CIT(A) that the assessee did not produce any material in support of its contention that undisclosed income of Rs.1.85 crore voluntarily declar…

(i) CIT v. President Industries (362 ITR 410) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax