(i) CIT v. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M

235 ITR 94High Court#20100 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

ITA/383/2016HC Karnataka20 Jul 2022

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260Section 260A

…he expenditure to the best of his judgment vide CIT vs. S.P. NAIK9. It is more so because the Assessment Order was made under Section 143(3) without rejecting the books of account under Section 145 of 9 235 ITR 94 - 19 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 the Act. The ITAT at paragraph 10 of the impugned order has rightly observed as under: “10. In the case in hand, except excess trade liability addition made for the assessment year 2008-09, there was no other basis to arrive at the conclusion that 8.39% of the transport creditors are not genuine and t…

DCIT, CIR-GANGTOK, SIKKIM, SIKKIM vs. M/S J. K. ENGINEERING (P) LTD., SIKKIM

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1400/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1400/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-Gangtok, Sikkim -Vs- M/S J.K. Engineering (P) Ltd. [Pan: Aabcj 9413 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…e learned CIT(Appeals), Siliguri erred in law as well as facts of the case in directing the reduce the addition at Rs. 10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer – (a) Reliance is placed on the ratio of following judgments: (i) CIT vs. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M (235 ITR 94), and (ii) CIT vs. H.M. Esufali & H.M. Abu Ali [90 ITR 271 (SC)] 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal, if any. 4 J.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 5. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that no supporting evidences were submitted by the assessee with regard to the aforesaid 15 items of ex…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/383/2016HC Telangana17 Feb 2017

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 260Section 260A

…he expenditure to the best of his judgment vide CIT vs. S.P. NAIK9. It is more so because the Assessment Order was made under Section 143(3) without rejecting the books of account under Section 145 of 9 235 ITR 94 - 19 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 the Act. The ITAT at paragraph 10 of the impugned order has rightly observed as under: “10. In the case in hand, except excess trade liability addition made for the assessment year 2008-09, there was no other basis to arrive at the conclusion that 8.39% of the transport creditors are not genuine and t…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA vs. M/S VIDYA POULTRY FARM, CHITRADURGA

In the result: (i) the Revenue’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose; &

ITA 1107/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwala, JCIT

…on (i) the findings of the earlier Bench of this Tribunal in the case of ITO v. M/s. Karthik Poultry Farm in ITA No.1106(B)/2014 dated: 6.11.2015 for the AY 2011-12 and (ii) the ruling of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M reported in 235 ITR 94 (Ker). 9. In reply ld. DR submitted that case law relied on by the assesee in the appeal of M/s Karthik Poulktry Farm in ITA No.1106(B)/2014 dated 06-11-2015 for the assessment year 2011-12 were on pure trading concern, and hardly had any relevance to a poultry farming. As per the ld. DR, revenue had not taken this line of argument in the said ca…

(i) CIT v. S.P. Nayak and Ramesh M (235 ITR 94) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax