Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT

261 ITR 268High Court2003#17512 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT

RAJABAHADUR B. YADAV,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4000/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajbahadur B. Yadav Ito-22(3)(3), Room No. 442, Namdev Room No. 308, 3Rd Vs. Nagar, Dighe Thane, Near Floor, Tower No. 6, Digha Bab Temple, Belapur Vashi Railway Station Road, New Complex, Navi Mumbai-400708. Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Abkpy2651C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 143Section 69

…thetic Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2002) 256 ITR 331 (Raj). In matters of transactions with interested person, the burden of proving that the transaction is genuine and that consideration is adequate will be on the asssessee as held in CIT v. Shatrunjay Diamonds (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bom). The High Court, while remanding the case to the Tribunal laid down the following guidelines: 1. The assessee should file an affidavit along with information to show that the price paid is reasonable. 2. The Assessing Officer may require the assessee to establish its claim. It would be open to the Assessing Officer to cross-examine the witn…

VISTEON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. ADDL CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1395/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…aid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forward contract for earlier year 2004-05 and this is a new ven…

VISTEON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. ADDL CIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1394/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…aid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forward contract for earlier year 2004-05 and this is a new ven…

VISTEON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1552/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…aid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forward contract for earlier year 2004-05 and this is a new ven…

VISTEON AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENGALPUT vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 1551/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1551 & 1552/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1394 & 1395/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08

Section 43(5)

…aid nature. 3.0 The assessee explained before the AO that any loss or gain arising from such transaction is a business loss or gain and relied on the decision of D Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (2005) 2 SOT 769, CIT v. Badridas Gauridu Private Limited (2003) 261 ITR 268 (Bombay HC) and CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagamull (1981) 129 ITR 169 (HC) (Calcutta). The AO noticed that the assessee’s main activities were manufacturing of control systems, plastic components, etc., for automobiles. The AO further observed that the assessee has not entered into such forward contract for earlier year 2004-05 and this is a new ven…

Kishorekumar & Co. v. DCIT (261 ITR 268) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax