Kachwala Gems v. JCIT

DCIT Cir. 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. P-Cube Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Dcit, M/S P-Cube Construction Circle-13(1)(2), Private Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.218, 02Nd Floor, 1/A/101, Umiya Nagar, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Visheshwar Nagar Road, Mumbai-400020 Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400054 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadcp9320N

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ,‘डी’,म ुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री याजेश कुभाय, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri. Mithalal D Mutha, Income Tax Officer, 8, Shop No.1, R.K.Building बनाम/ Ward 16(3)(1), Matru No.4, Khetwadi Lane, Mandir Building, Vs. MUMBAI – 400 004. Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 007. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) PAN. No. AASPM9256A यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ishwar P Rathi याजस्व की ओर से / Re…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Ramnik Sushil Chaudhary, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. No.5384/Mum/2016 (निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Shri Ramnik Sushil Chaudhary, –Circle-3, Flat No.101, Building No.7, फनाभ/ Room No.2, B Wing, 6Th Floor,, Tulsivihar Chs Ltd Tulsi Dham, Vs. Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate, Thane (W) 400607 Thane(W)-400604 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

…,723/-(20,68,31,682 x 5.73/100 less GP declared RS.63,55,840). In compliance, the Ld. AR could not offer any valid reasons for fall in the GP rate. Considering the facts in entirety and relying on decisions in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems Pvt. Ld. Vis JCIT 288 ITR 10 (SC), etc, as quoted above, in my considered opinion, the estimation of GP @5.73% will be reasonable, therefore, the disallowance to the extent of Rs 55,01,723/- out of hawala purchases of Rs 1,36,75,254/-, is sustained as requested by the ld.AR and balance amount of Rs 81,73,530/- (Rs.1,36,75,254/- Less Rs.55.01.723/-). is hereby deleted. Accordi…

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

…TR 846, 851, 852 (Gauh)]. - Mere payment by A/c Payee Cheque is not sacrosanct it would not make otherwise non-genuine transaction genuine. CIT V/s. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd. 208 ITR 465 (Cal). - Even in the case of M/s. Kanchwala Gems V/s JCIT upheld by SC 288 ITR 10 (SC), Hon'ble ITAT had held that even Account Payee Cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. In the case of CIT Vs Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del), it was held that since the assessee, despite several opportunities granted, did not produce the relevant documents, an adverse inference had to be drawn agai…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. T A George Kutty, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3 Shri T.A. George Kutty Room No. 02, 6Th Prop. Of M/S G.K. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Construction B 843, Midc, Wagle Indl. Dakak Engg., Estate, Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W)-400604. Thane-400607 Pan No. Adopg7694M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

…come Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). 2 2. The grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue read as under: - 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not following the order of ITAT, Pune in ITA No. 1411- 1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s. Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. wherein 100% addition of bogus pu…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Niko Associates, Thane vs. ITO 3(1), Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri D.T. Garasiaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Niko Associates, Ito-3(1), 6, Mohan Building, It Park, Wagle Estate, Vs. Pipe Line Road, Thane Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aaffn7758K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Momder Vaidya, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.07.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2017 O R D E R

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Niko Associates, ITO-3(1), 6, Mohan Building, IT Park, Wagle Estate, Vs. Pipe Line Road, Thane Thane (W)-400 604 PAN: AAFFN7758K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Momder Vaidya, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.07.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 05.10.2017 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29.01.2016…

ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan vs. Pushpak Auxichem P.Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ward-1(3), Ltd. बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, 804, Iris, 8Th Floor, Vs. Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Regency Estate, Bldg. No.7, Kalyan (West), Dayaneshwar Ngar, Kalyan, Maharashtra-421301 Shill Road, Dombivali (East), Thane (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcp0099E

…hane, giving relief to the assessee to the extent of suppressed Gross profit out of the bogus purchases specially when the assessee did not produce necessary evidence, relying upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanchanwala Gems vs JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon'ble High Court in the case of Vijay Protein and Sajay Oilcakes, etc. 2. During hearing, the Ld. DR, Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, defended the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by advancing arguments, which is identical to the ground raised. On the other hand, none was present for the assessee in spite of receipt of registered AD…

Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors P.Ltd, Bhiwandi vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunil Great (Hyk) Processors Acit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1 बनाम/ House No. 1, Green Park, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. A-Wing, 1St Floor, Wayale Nagar Khandakpada, Bhiwandi-421302 Kalyan (W), Maharashtra-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aajcs1619M

…d on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ‘D’, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Shamim Yahya, AM & Shri Shaktijit Dey, JM ITA No.1288/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Ward 6(3)(3) A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Mumbai. Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. PAN : AABCJ3749B. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) CO No.191/Mum/2017 : Asst.Years 2009-2010 M/s.Jostars Orogotech Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ A-501 Innova Marathon, Next to Gen Ward 6(3)(3) Off Ganpatrao Kadam Marg…

Mayur Shrimankar, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

ITO WD 3(2), Thane vs. Rammangal S. Gupta, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, Wd-3(2), Shri Rammangal S. Gupta, Room No. 4, B-Wing, 9, Kedar Bunglow, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Shivaji Nagar, Wagle Estate, Wagle Estate, Vs. Thane – 400604 Thane (W)- 400604 Pan: Aavpg3060H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) by raising the following effective grounds of appeal:- 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Kanchwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon’ble Court’s decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in not following the order of ITAT, Pune in ITA No. 1411-1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. wherein 100% addition of bogus pur…

Mitesh Chimanlal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…n. He observed that payment by account payee cheque was not sacrosanct and was not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. For this proposition he relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble 3 Apex Court in the case of Kachwal Gems V/s JCIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). In this view of the matter, the AO held the entire alleged bogus purchases of Rs.74,32,632 debited to the P&L Account as unexplained expenditure and accordingly added the same to the total income declared by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A), has dismissed the legal ground challenging the…

Bhadresh Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

…nnot be conclusive in a case where genuineness of transaction is in doubt. (iii) that payment by account payee cheque is not sacrosanct and is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchase. Reliance was placed on Kachawala Gems vs. Jt.CIT (2007) 288 ITR 10 (SC). (iv) that the undisputed fact is that the purchases claimed to have been made from these parties remained unverified. M/s. Bhadresh Trading Company (v) that the genuineness of the transaction could be decided on the basis of primary facts on record and the Revenue is not required to lead a clinching evidence to prove that purchases are bogus…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.07/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2608/Mum/2015) Assessment Years: 2009-10 Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj Jain, Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Proprietor Of N.R. Computech, (Erstwhile Income Tax बनाम/ 23/11, Jawahar Nagar, Officer-24(3)(4), Vs. Goregaon (East), R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Mumbai-400063 Pratyakshkar Bhavan, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C C.O. No.06 To 08/Mum/2017 Bharat Kumar Nagraj Jain Assessment Years: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mr. Bharatkumar Nagraj (Erstwhile Income Tax Officer- Jain, बनाम/ 24(3)(4), Proprietor Of N.R. Vs. R. No.705, C-11, 7Th Floor, Computech, 23/11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Jawahar Nagar, B.K.C. Bandra (East), Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Acwpj1720C

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

Shekasa Engineering Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02Nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aaacs7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 14/09/2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘ ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shekasa Engineering Co. DCIT, Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(2)(1), बनाम/ 02nd Floor, 182/186, Metal Room No.670, Vs. House, Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Cotton Exchange, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN No.:-AAACS7426F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Satish Mody Shri V. Justin…

ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai vs. T M Mohamedally, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-14(2)(2), M/S T M Mohamedally Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Hararwala Bldg. बनाम/ Earnest House, 112, Lohar Chawl, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) Pan No.:-Aacft2448M

…ed on estimate. This High Court in the case of Sanjay Oil Cake [2009] 316 ITR 274 (Guj) has held that whether an estimate should be at a particular sum or at a different sum can never be a question of law. 7. The apex court in the case of Kachwala Gems [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) has held that in a best judgment assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt, the authorities should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment and should not act totally arbitrarily but there is necessarily some amount of guess work involved in a best judgment assessment.…

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

…ngly restricted the addition made by AO to 10% of the total amount of bogus purchases made during the relevant year. The Ld. DR relying on the various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and Tribunals including the judgment passed in Kachwala Gems 288 ITR 10 (SC), Sreelekha Banerjee 49 ITR 112 (SC), Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) and the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in N.K. Protein Ltd. Vs. DCIT in Tax Appeal No. 240, 241, 261, 242, 260 of 2003, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is not in accordance with the principles of law laid down in the afo…