Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki v. Union of India

16 SCC 535Supreme Court of India2008#13517 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki v. Union of India

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…from his premises can form the basis of the addition. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…from his premises can form the basis of the addition. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…from his premises can form the basis of the addition. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Harsh International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3135/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2929/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-2930/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 11/2A, Pusa Road Central Circle-8 New Delhi New Delhi Aabch1511K (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3134/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-3135/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Dcit Vs Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-8 11/2A, Pusa Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aabch1511K (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. K. Saroha, Cit Dr

Section 145(3)

…opportunity to cross-examine the witness was denied and when there is no corroborate material in support of the statements. (a) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC). (h). On the four loose papers seized during the course of search, the learned counsel submitted that a perusal of these papers demonstrates that nowhere the names of 83 persons were 24 2929/Del/2012 Harsh mentioned. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly read these documents and has come to factually incorrect conclusion.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Harsh International (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3134/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2929/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-2930/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 11/2A, Pusa Road Central Circle-8 New Delhi New Delhi Aabch1511K (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3134/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-3135/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Dcit Vs Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-8 11/2A, Pusa Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aabch1511K (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. K. Saroha, Cit Dr

Section 145(3)

…opportunity to cross-examine the witness was denied and when there is no corroborate material in support of the statements. (a) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC). (h). On the four loose papers seized during the course of search, the learned counsel submitted that a perusal of these papers demonstrates that nowhere the names of 83 persons were 24 2929/Del/2012 Harsh mentioned. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly read these documents and has come to factually incorrect conclusion.…

M/S. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2930/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2929/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-2930/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 11/2A, Pusa Road Central Circle-8 New Delhi New Delhi Aabch1511K (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3134/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-3135/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Dcit Vs Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-8 11/2A, Pusa Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aabch1511K (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. K. Saroha, Cit Dr

Section 145(3)

…opportunity to cross-examine the witness was denied and when there is no corroborate material in support of the statements. (a) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC). (h). On the four loose papers seized during the course of search, the learned counsel submitted that a perusal of these papers demonstrates that nowhere the names of 83 persons were 24 2929/Del/2012 Harsh mentioned. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly read these documents and has come to factually incorrect conclusion.…

M/S. Harsh International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2929/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2929/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-2930/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit 11/2A, Pusa Road Central Circle-8 New Delhi New Delhi Aabch1511K (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A .No.-3134/Del/2012 (A. Y 2004-05) I.T.A .No.-3135/Del/2012 (A. Y 2005-06) Dcit Vs Harsh International Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-8 11/2A, Pusa Road New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aabch1511K (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Mukesh Gupta, Adv Respondent By Sh. A. K. Saroha, Cit Dr

Section 145(3)

…opportunity to cross-examine the witness was denied and when there is no corroborate material in support of the statements. (a) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 (b). Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC). (h). On the four loose papers seized during the course of search, the learned counsel submitted that a perusal of these papers demonstrates that nowhere the names of 83 persons were 24 2929/Del/2012 Harsh mentioned. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has wrongly read these documents and has come to factually incorrect conclusion.…