Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

102 ITD 375Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#1577 most cited

What is Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

An addition made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during assessment proceedings is invalid in law.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi · CIT · 102 ITD 375 · addition based on statement · invalid addition · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 68Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 40(3)section 65asection 23(5)true and full disclosureproject completion methodon money receiptannual letting valuesection 65bhouse property incomesection 21section 43c

Judgments citing Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Neotech Education Foundation, Vadodara

ITA 194/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69BSection 69C

…Page : 29 Shri Pravinchandra R. Patel and Anrs Vs. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2, Vadodara ITA No.299/Ahd/2019 and Other 20 appeals find support and guidance from order coordinate bench of Pune ITAT in case of Dhanvarsha Builders & Developer (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 102 ITD 375, the relevant finding is extracted below: So far as the argument of the assessee that the impugned papers not only showed the receipts but also the expenditure and, therefore, the document should be read as a whole and deduction for the expenditure incurred should be given to the assessee while computing undisclosed income was concerned, the seiz…

DCIT, Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Adarsh Industrial Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2887/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 68

…37 of 2010) dated 23.11.2010 (Bombay High Court) 4. CIT vs. M/s Guruprerana Enterprises (ITA No. 1849 of 2011) dated 04.03.2013 (Bombay High Court). 5. Asst. CIT v. Layer Exports P Ltd [184 TTJ 469 (Mum)] 6. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune) 7. S.G.R.Enterprises v ACIT [112 TTJ 377 (Bang)] 8. DCIT v Tejas Constructions [ITA 934/PN/2009 Order dated 31.1.2012] 9. Fort Projects (P) Ltd. v DCIT [145 TTJ 340 (Kol)] 10. Rakesh K. Kapadia [48 ITD 283 (And)] 11. ITO v Karda Construction P. Ltd. [ITA no.971/PN/2011 dated 31.07.2012] 12. South Calcutta Promoters (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. ITO l.T.…

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…h search was conducted, and the accounting of such income have to be made on the basis of the method of accounting followed by the assessee is supported by the order of the ITAT, Pune bench in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune)]. We, thus, direct the A.O to subject the income element embedded in the on- money received by the assessee to tax in terms of our aforesaid observations.The Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations 12. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid obser…

Tulip Land & Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tulip Land & Dy. Cit, Developers P. Ltd., Central Circle-6(2), Ground Floor, Room No.1903, Rajpipla, 19Th Floor, Vs. Opp. Standard Chartered Air India Building, Bank, Nariman Point, Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai Pan: Aadct 7067N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit, M/S. Tulip Land & Central Circle-6(2), Developers P. Ltd., Room No.1903, A/201, Rajpipla, 19Th Floor, Vs. Opp. Standard Chartered Air India Building, Bank, Nariman Point, Santacruz (W), Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai Pan: Aadct 7067N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon, Sr. D.R
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…37 of 2010) dated 23.11.2010 (Bombay High Court) 4. CIT vs. M/s Guruprerana Enterprises (ITA No. 1849 of 2011) dated 04.03.2013 (Bombay High Court). 5. Asst. CIT v. Layer Exports P Ltd [184 TTJ 469 (Mum)] 6. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune) 7. S.G.R.Enterprises v ACIT [112 TTJ 377 (Bang)] 8. DCIT v Tejas Constructions [ITA 934/PN/2009 Order dated 31.1.2012] 9. Fort Projects (P) Ltd. v DCIT [145 TTJ 340 (Kol)] 10. Rakesh K. Kapadia [48 ITD 283 (And)] 11. ITO v Karda Construction P. Ltd. [ITA no.971/PN/2011 dated 31.07.2012] 12. South Calcutta Promoters (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. ITO l.T.…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Sumer Builders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of CIT v. President Industries [258 ITR 654], DCIT v. Panna Corporation in Tax Appeal Nos. 323 and 325 of 2000 and also in the case 46 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune)] and DCIT v. Prime Developers in ITA Nos. 175 to 178 and 321 to 324/Mum/2010. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore urged that so far as the present year is concerned the profit could not be ascertained since the project is not complete and hence the entire on-money could not be taxed in this year, except to the extent of 10% consistently…

Sumer Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of CIT v. President Industries [258 ITR 654], DCIT v. Panna Corporation in Tax Appeal Nos. 323 and 325 of 2000 and also in the case 46 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune)] and DCIT v. Prime Developers in ITA Nos. 175 to 178 and 321 to 324/Mum/2010. Ld. Counsel for the assessee therefore urged that so far as the present year is concerned the profit could not be ascertained since the project is not complete and hence the entire on-money could not be taxed in this year, except to the extent of 10% consistently…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. M/S. Anupam Organiser, Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2036/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2036/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of V Anupam Organiser, Income Tax, S. F.P.No.12/13, Tp No.37, Central Circle-4, Surat. Nr. Bhumi Residency, Althan, Surat. [Pan: Aarfa 6954 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay –Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari - Cit-Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…rate of 15 percent of the total consideration as per the sale agreements and also on the ‘on money’ received by the assesse. We, therefore, confirm his order for all the four assessment years. In the case of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers P Ltd. vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune), --. "However, the undisclosed income detected as a consequence of Page 18 of 24 DCIT, Cen. Cir.-4, Surat Vs. Anupam Organiser /ITA No.2036/AHD/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 search cannot be taxed in its entirely in the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted, but on the method of accounting followed by assesse…

M/S.Kathawala Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT(A)-6(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1633/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/shri Naresh Jain, Mahavir Jain A.R‟sFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…CIT Vs. Advance Construction Company (P) Ltd. 275 ITR 30 (Guj), has held that „project completion method‟ is a duly accepted method in case of a real estate developer. Further, the ITAT, Pune in the case of Dhanvarsha Buildes and Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (102 ITD 375) (Pune), had observed, that the undisclosed income in the form of “on money” should be taxed in the respective assessment years as per the method of accounting followed by the assessee. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, it can safely be concluded that the addition of the amount of “on money” has to be made on the basis o…

Komal Tex Fab Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 572/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 140 & 141/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year: 2009-2010 & 2010-11 With Cross Objection No.148/Ahd/2013 In Asstt.Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Survey No.167/1687 Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 572/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(4) Survey No.167/1687 Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aaack 6150 C

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 268A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘A’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ IT(SS)A No. 140 and 141/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt.Year: 2009-2010 and 2010-11 WITH Cross Objection No.148/Ahd/2013 IN Asstt.Year : 2010-11 DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(4) Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Survey No.167/1687 Nr. Balaji Textile Narol-Sarkhej Road Ahmedabad 382 405. PAN : AAACK 6150 C आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 572/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Komal Tex Fab P.Ltd. DCIT, Cent.Cir.2(4)…

Yug Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7130/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 143(3)

…Bombay High Court in ITA No. 1849 of 2011 dated 4.3.2013. M/s. Yug Developers b) Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Fort Projects P Ltd vs DCIT reported in 145 TTJ 340 c) Pune Tribunal in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers P Ltd vs DCIT reported in 102 ITD 375 d) Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Runwal Homes P Ltd in ITA No. 5621/Mum/2017 4.4. Moreover, we also find in the present case, the ld CITA had accepted that during the relevant year, there has been no sale nor any transfer of significant risks or rewards or even transfer of possession of the flats to the prospective buyers had taken place. We h…

M/S.Jawahar Saw Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

ITA 1915/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1915/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Sh. S. M. MakhijaFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…hat the contents of documents must be read as a whole. It is not permissible to accept a part and ignore the rest of the document. Further, Ld. AR relied upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Chandra Mohan Vrs. ACIT 71 ITD 245, Dhanvarsha Builder Vrs. DCIT 102 ITD 375, etc. and requested that quantum of expenditure claimed by the assessee against un-recorded sales may be allowed. 5. On the other hand Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record, judgment cited by the parties…

Navrangpura Organisers & Dev. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 338/AHD/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he additions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Guiarat High Court in the case of Ramilaben Ratilal Shah Vs. CIT 282 ITR 176 (Gui.) and Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 ITD 375 (Pune), wherein it has been held that when entries such as area, name of property, cheque amount etc. are written besides other entries and such specific entries corroborate with the actual transactions recorded in the books of account, then the entire document has to be read as a whole and the addition on the basis of such documents is wholly ju…

Navratna Organisers & Dev. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Cent. Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1731/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he additions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Guiarat High Court in the case of Ramilaben Ratilal Shah Vs. CIT 282 ITR 176 (Gui.) and Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 ITD 375 (Pune), wherein it has been held that when entries such as area, name of property, cheque amount etc. are written besides other entries and such specific entries corroborate with the actual transactions recorded in the books of account, then the entire document has to be read as a whole and the addition on the basis of such documents is wholly ju…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 730/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 729 & 730/DEL/2016 A.Yrs. 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Central Circle-18, VS. M/s Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. NEW DELHI 68, Scindia House, ROOM NO. 102, ARA Centre, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1 E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., (PAN AAACG1978N) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 150 & 151/DEL/2016 (IN ITA Nos. 729 & 730/DEL/2016) A.Yrs. 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, Central Circle-18, 68, Scindia House, NEW DELHI Connaught Place…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 729/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH "F”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 729 & 730/DEL/2016 A.Yrs. 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, Central Circle-18, VS. M/s Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. NEW DELHI 68, Scindia House, ROOM NO. 102, ARA Centre, Connaught Place, New Delhi-1 E-2, Jhandewalan Extn., (PAN AAACG1978N) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 150 & 151/DEL/2016 (IN ITA Nos. 729 & 730/DEL/2016) A.Yrs. 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s Gupta & Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS. DCIT, Central Circle-18, 68, Scindia House, NEW DELHI Connaught Place…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pinnacle Constro & Eco Home Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1263/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Ms. Sabhana Parveen
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

…ced reliance on various decisions including : i. Income Tax Officer Vs. Karda Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 971/PN/2011 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 31-07-2012; ii. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 102 ITD 375 (Pune); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Ashadevi Sushil Agarwal in ITA No. 44/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 08-09-2017; iv. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Ohm Developers in ITA No. 314/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1990-91 decided on 08-05- 2015. 3.1 The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeal of Reven…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pinnacle Constro & Eco Home Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1262/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Ms. Sabhana Parveen
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

…ced reliance on various decisions including : i. Income Tax Officer Vs. Karda Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 971/PN/2011 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 31-07-2012; ii. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 102 ITD 375 (Pune); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Ashadevi Sushil Agarwal in ITA No. 44/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 08-09-2017; iv. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Ohm Developers in ITA No. 314/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1990-91 decided on 08-05- 2015. 3.1 The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeal of Reven…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pinnacle Constro & Eco Home Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1261/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Ms. Sabhana Parveen
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

…ced reliance on various decisions including : i. Income Tax Officer Vs. Karda Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 971/PN/2011 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 31-07-2012; ii. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 102 ITD 375 (Pune); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Ashadevi Sushil Agarwal in ITA No. 44/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 08-09-2017; iv. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Ohm Developers in ITA No. 314/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1990-91 decided on 08-05- 2015. 3.1 The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeal of Reven…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Pinnacle Constro & Eco Home Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, all the four appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1260/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Ms. Sabhana Parveen
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

…ced reliance on various decisions including : i. Income Tax Officer Vs. Karda Construction Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 971/PN/2011 for assessment year 2009-10 decided on 31-07-2012; ii. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 102 ITD 375 (Pune); iii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Ashadevi Sushil Agarwal in ITA No. 44/PUN/2015 for assessment year 2007-08 decided on 08-09-2017; iv. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Ohm Developers in ITA No. 314/Ahd/2002 for assessment year 1990-91 decided on 08-05- 2015. 3.1 The ld. AR prayed for dismissing the appeal of Reven…

ITO 12(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Muez Hest India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-

ITA 6889/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja (DR)
Section 132Section 147Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…nsidered as a whole and the assessing officer cannot read or select the portion advantageous to revenue and ignore the other part. The said principle has also been confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Pune in the case of [Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (102 ITD 375 (Pune). In the case of appellant it is apparent in the ledger name and in the narration of the entries that the amount is paid towards Advance for Machinery, which is outside the purview of Sec. 269SS and 269T. It is absolutely clear from the language of the section that the provisions of Sec. 269SS are applicable only in the case of transaction…