(i) Rameshchandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 1687 ITR 375 (ii) Rmlal Kamdar v. CIT (Mad)

238 ITR 130High Court1999#13811 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing (i) Rameshchandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 1687 ITR 375 (ii) Rmlal Kamdar v. CIT (Mad)

Shri Mufiz Burhamuddin Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

…the disallowance has been made on agreed basis before the A.O. hence the appellant doesn 't have any right to make appeal against the agreed additions/disallowances. 3.4.1. In this regard the reliance is also placed in the case of Mahesh B. Shah Vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130 and Ramesh Chandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375 wherein it has been held that once the appellant has agreed for some addition before the A. O. then the appellant did not have any right to file the appeal against such agreed addition unless the appellant proves that the addition was made under some threat or coercion. In the instant case there…

Central Medical Stores, Valanchery vs. The ITO, Tirur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 97/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Central Medical Store The Income Tax Officer Central Bazar, Valanchery Ward - 1, Tirur Vs. Tirur, Malapuram 679552 Malapuram 676101 Pan – Aaefc4396B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Kittu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 274Section 44A

…ditions unless the assessee proves that the agreement of the assessee was obtained through coercion or that the same was malafide: (i) Rameshchandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 1687 ITR 375 (ii) Rmlal Kamdar Vs. CIT (Mad) 108 ITR 73 (iii) Mahesh B. Shah Vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130 (iv) Sterling Machine Tools Vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181 4 M/s. Central Medical Store 11. In the present case, the partner of the assessee firm himself accepted the addition proposed by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, as clearly stated in the assessment order. Though it was alleged by the assessee during the appellate proceed…

M/S Minera Steel & Power Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Bellary Range, Bellary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 515/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri H Siva Prasad Reddy, I.T.PFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s Minera Steel & Power Pvt. Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Ltd., of Income-tax, No.811/2, NH-63, Bellary Range, Hospet Road, Alipur, Bellary-583 105. Bellary-583 115. PAN - AACCK 7567 M REVENUE ASSESSEE Assessee by : Shri H Siva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Anantapur vs. Renuka Gated Community, Anantapur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Renuka Gated Circle-1, Community, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Aanfr 2245 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…ition as the assessee has failed to prove coercion or malafide. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions on this issue: a) Rameshchandr & Co vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. b) Ramanlal Kamdas vs. CIT (Mad.) 108 ITR 73. c) Mahesh B. Shah vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130. d) Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181. 4. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal.” 3. None appeared before us to represent the case of the assessee. However, on examining the record, We find that the Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable as per the CBDT Circulars No.03/2018 dated 11- 07-2018 and Circular…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 5382/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)

…that a retracted confession should be corroborated in each material particular; it is sufficient that there is a general corroboration of the important incidents mentioned in the confession.” 17. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Mahesh B Shah Vs ACIT (1999) 238 ITR 130 and the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169, examining the similar issue has observed as under: "The petitioner has agreed to treat the expenditure as a capital expenditure both before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax as well as before the revisional authority. No evidence of material is furnished…

Shri Narendrasinh Mahendrasinh Charan, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2481/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2481/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Shri Narendrasinh The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Mahendrasinh Charan Ward-1 Vs. G-404, Panacea Residency Himatnagar Opp. Swami Narayan Park Kathwada Road, Naroda Ahmedabad-382 330 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aqqpc 7046 N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 68

…ssee agreed for addition, then he has no right to challenge that finding in an appeal. The Ld. first appellate authority has made reference to three following three decisions: 1. Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT :: 108 ITR 73 (mad.) 2. Mahesh B.Shah vs. ACIT & Anr. :: 238 ITR 130(ker.) and 3. Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT ::123 ITR 181 (alla.). 4. It is true that admission being declaration against an interest is a good evidence because that will prohibit the Investigating Officer to make enquiry further. Such admission would work as an estoppel against the person who made the admission. But it is to be remembered that…

Shri Jatin M. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 500/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

…parties and we have perused the relevant materials on record. We find from the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) that while dismissing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the judgement of Shree Krishna Cargo vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2013-14 Mahesh B. Shah vs. CIT 238 ITR 130 (Ker.) and Ramesh Chandra & Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375 (Bom.) wherein it was held that once the appellant has agreed for some addition before the Ld. AO, then the appellant does not have any right to prefer any appeal before higher forum against agreed addition unless he proves that the addition was made under threat or coercion. In the instant case…