How many judgments cite Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India (249 ITR 7), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India

249 ITR 7Reported decision2001#3405 most cited

What is Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India authority for?

The primary object of the assessee in exploiting an immovable property determines whether income derived from it is assessable as income from property. If the main intention is letting out the property, it's rental income.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India · 249 ITR 7 · income from property · primary object · letting out property · rental income · assessment of income · exploitation of property

Judgments citing Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India

OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 114/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…petition of the assessee against the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the DVO’s report was rejected. The following case laws were also relied upon. i. CIT vs. Achamma Chacko [2010] 326 ITR 258 (Kerela) ii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd., vs. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 7 (M.P.) The ld. DR also submitted that a paper book containing judgments supporting the proposition that only those original assessments which were completed and became final and conclusive on or before 30.09.2004, were excluded from the ambit of section 142A and that sufficiency or adequacy of reasons recorded under section 148 or the correctness o…

SHRI SHRI PRAHLAD RAI AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BIL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 64, 65 & 66/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Prahalad Rai Agrawal Nehru Park Ketka Road, Post Office Surajpur, Dist. Surajpur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa0858L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.R Rao, Ar Revenue By : Shri Gitesh Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…s one more admitted factual position that the godown rent was received from Chhattishgarh State Ware House, Raipur, which proved that the asset in question was commercialy exploited. 6. On similar issue, we find that in CIT vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., (249 ITR 7), which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR 143 (SC), Lordships had an occasion to elaborately deal with judicial precedents on whether rental income could be taxed under the head business profits, and Their Lordships concluded as follows: Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that merely…

SHRI SHRI PRAHLAD RAI AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BIL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

SHRI SHRI PRAHLAD RAI AGRAWAL,SURAJPUR (CG) vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-KORBA, KORBA(CG)

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BIL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

TELEKON MEDIA INDIA PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 25(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5352/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…d in sub-s (3), and that no part of the income can be assessed under s. 9 or under s. 10. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to the costs here and below.” 5.4 In the case of CIT vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd’s case (249 ITR 7), which was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in judgment reported at 263 ITR at page 143, their Lordships concluded as follows: “Taking a sum total of aforesaid discussions, it clearly appears that merely because income is attached to any immovable property cannot be the sole factor for assessment of such income as income from property; what has…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FAERY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6419/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Acit-3(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Faery Estates Pvt. Room No.607, 6Th Floor Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 70, Nagindas Master Road Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai – 400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacf5718K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24Section 37

…ction 22 of the Act. The AO has comprehensively discussed the issue and came to the reasonable and correct view that income is to be assessed u/s.23 of the Act. Ld.DR, relied heavily on the order of AO and in the case of CIT Vs. Shambhu Investment Pvt. Ltd., [249 ITR 7], East India Housing & Development Trust Ltd., Vs. CIT [42 ITR 49] (SC) and CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., [29 taxmann.com 303] (Del) and thus prayed for the Bench that the order of CIT(A) may kindly be reversed that of AO may be restored. 3.4. Ld.AR, on the other hand, submitted that assessee has developed an Information Technol…

ACIT 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. FAERY ESTATES P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4261/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Karia, AR

Section 22Section 24Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s. Faery Estates Pvt. 4261/Mum/16 2012-13 Ltd., ACIT-3(1)(2), 70, Nagindas Master MUMBAI Road, Fort, MUMBAI 4262/Mum/16 2011-12 [PAN: AAACF5718K] Appellant by : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT-DR, Respondent by : Shri Chetan Karia, AR Date of Hearing : 25-06-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19-08-2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A.M: These two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order(s) of the Commissioner of Income Ta…

ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. VULVAN TRADERS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 2.8. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 29 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 29 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee…

ACIT NON CORP CIRCLE 1 (1) FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUSINESS CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI vs. M/S DEOLITE HASKINS & SELLS, CHENNAI

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) ITA Nos.2578 to 2580/chny/2017 :- 29 -: C.O.Nos.47to 49/Chny/2018 M/s.Deloittee Haskins & Sells 5.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee…

SOLO HARDWARE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 5(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1486/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1787/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for asse…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for asse…

SNEHALATA AHNAND RANE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 3(3), KALYAN

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1785/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 2.7. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for asse…

SHRI DINESHKUMAR C. DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(4), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1730/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

ITO 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JAYDEEP PROFILES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

JAYDEEP PROFILES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 4.6. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

MOHD HASAN ABDUL GAFOOR MOMIN,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(2), KALYAN

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), 16 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 3.8. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had reason to believe…

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. Srichand Lalchand Talreja vs Asst. CIT (1998) 98 taxman 14, 19 (Bom.), xv. Usha Beltron Ltd. vs JCIT (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat.) xvi. Kapoor Brothers vs Union of India (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 xvii. Vippy Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 7, 8 (MP) 15 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 2.11. In Dilip S. Dahanukar vs Asst. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 147, 150-51 (Bom.). The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under:- “Held, that there was material on record on the basis of survey and statement of person to show that the assessee had wrongfully claim deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, the Assessing Off…

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2