Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT

87 ITD 35Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#18444 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153CSection 69ASection 69CSection 133ASection 132Section 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133abusiness connectiondumb documentssection 132(4a)loose papersdocuments seizedunexplained expendituresection 69csection 133section 133aincome-tax officersection 132(4)

Judgments citing Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…) of 2013, dated 28-2-2018]. 11. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…) of 2013, dated 28-2-2018]. 11. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…) of 2013, dated 28-2-2018]. 11. The Mumbai ITAT in case of Asstt. CIT v. Layer Exports (P.) Ltd. [20171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc…

I.T.O WD - 8(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S RUIA SONS PVT LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 365/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 365/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-8(3), -Vs.- M/S. Ruia Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 3949 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 301Section 40

…on, there is no avoidance of tax liability, no part of the income from the asset goes into the hands of the assessee in shape of income or under any guise." .' 5.1.13. Reliance has been placed by the Assessing Officer in the case of Kaycee Electrical Vs. DCIT 87 ITD 35 (De i) in which case the facts were that the entire transaction which could generate income were kept secret and not entered into the regular books of account it was held to be undisclosed income. The principle laid down in the said decision was where. any assets is found in the possession and control of the assessee it is not recorded in the regul…

I.T.O WD - 7(3),KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S SHALINI PROPERTIES & DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm] I.T.A No. 171/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-7(3) -Vs.- M/S. Shalini Properties & Developers Kolkata Pvt. Limited., Kolkata [Pan : Aahcs 7896 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, Cit For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri Arup Kumar Sinha, CITFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 301Section 37(1)

…hat the total group companies are engaged in colorable transactions amongst themselves. Similar view had been taken in the case of Logitronics Pvt. Ltd. ITA 4716/DEL of 2009 dated 30.04.2010, ITAT, New Delhi and in the case of Kaycee Electricals v DCIT (2003) 87 ITD 35 (Delhi). 3 M/s.Shalini Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 (iv) the contentions expressed in the copies of the extracts of the board resolution, as claimed by the appellant, has already been duly considered in the assessment stage and strongly refuted in the assessment order itself with logic as well as relevant case laws. (v) It is als…

Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT (87 ITD 35) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax