Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

163 ITD 571Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#22935 most cited
3

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

Judgments citing Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

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

ITA 635/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…aside to the file of the Ld. AO to make proper enquiries in the facts of the case. He argued that the Ld. AO had not taken any view in this matter. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 163 ITD 571 wherein it was held that the disallowance under 14A would be applicable for shares held as stock-in-trade. The availability of own funds as argued by the Ld. AR had not been conclusively proved by the assessee as having used for investments, which should have been verified by the Ld. AO. 8. In defence, the Ld. AR argued that there was absolutely…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-35, Kolkata

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

ITA 634/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…aside to the file of the Ld. AO to make proper enquiries in the facts of the case. He argued that the Ld. AO had not taken any view in this matter. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 163 ITD 571 wherein it was held that the disallowance under 14A would be applicable for shares held as stock-in-trade. The availability of own funds as argued by the Ld. AR had not been conclusively proved by the assessee as having used for investments, which should have been verified by the Ld. AO. 8. In defence, the Ld. AR argued that there was absolutely…

Kishan Gopal Mohta, Kolkata vs. JCIT, RG-35, Kolkata

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

ITA 310/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 310/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Jcit, Range-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 634 & 635/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kishan Gopal Mohta -Vs- Acit, Circle-35,Kolkata [Pan: Adqpm 0469 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Bhide, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjune, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…aside to the file of the Ld. AO to make proper enquiries in the facts of the case. He argued that the Ld. AO had not taken any view in this matter. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 163 ITD 571 wherein it was held that the disallowance under 14A would be applicable for shares held as stock-in-trade. The availability of own funds as argued by the Ld. AR had not been conclusively proved by the assessee as having used for investments, which should have been verified by the Ld. AO. 8. In defence, the Ld. AR argued that there was absolutely…

Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (163 ITD 571) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax