(i) CIT v. Shakti Industries

36 Taxmann.com 16High Court2013#14135 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing (i) CIT v. Shakti Industries

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The DCIT, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/CHD/2024 IN आयकर अपील सं./ ITA Nos. 992 & 993/CHD/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18…

MAHASHAKTI ENGINEERING CO.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1940/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Mahashakti Engineering Co., Vs Dcit, C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Circle-21(1), Chamber No.206-07, Ansal ‘Satyam’, New Delhi. Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaofm9129J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th March, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-13, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal No.1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…ks of account are not rejected and when the GP is higher. He also relied on the following decisions for the above proposition:- (i) CIT vs. Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products, ITA No.165/2010, order dated 04.05.2017 (All); and (ii) CIT vs. Shakti Ind. (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 16 (Guj). 7 9. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of valuation of closing stock of raw material, finished goods and scrap is uncalled for. 10. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). She submitted that…

(i) CIT v. Shakti Industries (36 Taxmann.com 16) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax