Kumar Manchanda vs State of Karnataka 1990 SCC (Cri)537 3. Pyarelal Mittal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

291 ITR 214High Court2007#15617 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 145 Section 254 Section 44AD Section 68

Issues it is cited on

person company india business document interest section 14 total income

Judgments citing Kumar Manchanda vs State of Karnataka 1990 SCC (Cri)537 3. Pyarelal Mittal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. SHRI SACHIT KUMAR AGARWAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is sustained, and\nthe appeal is dismissed

ITA 396/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(2)Section 68

…profit rate - Held, yes Whether thus, finding with regard to gross\nPage 9 of 16\nprofit rate was based on surmises and conjectures - Held, yes [Para\n11][In favour of assessee]\n(3) Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in case of Pyarelal Mittal vs. ACIT in\n[2007] 291 ITR 214 (GAU).\nSection 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Method of accounting –\nRejection of accounts\n■Where assessee carried on business of stock and share brokership\nand Assessing Officer did not find any fault with books of account and\nmethod of accounting employed by assessee nor had there been\nsuppression of any material fact which deterred hi…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…(Trib.) 27. ACIT v. RamilaPravin Shah (Mum.)(Trib.) List of additional cases relied upon 1. Tansukhrai Bodulat v. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 325 2 .Rajan Kumar Manchanda vs State of Karnataka 1990 SCC (Cri)537 3. Pyarelal Mittal vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 291 ITR 214(Gauhati) 4. CIT vs Simon Craves Ltd(1967)105 ITR 212(SC) 5. Dheeraj Lal Girdharilal vs CIT (1954)26 ITR 736 (SC) (1) Assessee's statement was recorded on oath and it has become now an affidavit. As per various Supreme Court rulings it is settled law that affidavit is a legal enforceable piece of evidence and cannot be ignored .None of the stateme…

DCIT, CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD., YAMUNANAGAR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…could not be bye-passed merely on the whims and fences of the parties”. Almost, the same view was taken in “Madnani Construction Corporation P. ITA 326/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 36 Ltd. Vs CIT” (2008) 296 ITR 45 (Gauhati) and “Pyare Lal Mittal Vs ACIT” (2007) 291 ITR 214 (Gauhati). 18.3 In “M/s Amar Nath & Sons, Kurukshetra Vs the ITO, Ward-2, Kurukshetra”, vide order dated 18.04.2012 (copy assessment ACL Paper Book -1, at pages 21-26), passed in ITA 227/CHD/2012, for assessment year 2008-09, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that there must be something more than a mere suspicion to support the e…

ACIT, CIR-52, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI EXPORT CORPORATION, KOLKATA

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Venkatramani, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…no addition can be made unless the books of accounts were rejected and fault was found by the AO in such books of accounts. C.I.T. Vs. Sulabh Marble Pvt Ltd. Rajasthan reported in 165 Taxman 258 S.R.K. Tea Processor, Calcutta ITAT Payare Lal Mittal, Gouhati, 291 ITR 214 CIT Vs. Mascot India Tools and Forging Pvt. Ltd.322 ITR 116(Allahabad), CIT Vs Ludhiyana Steel Rolling Mills Ltd 166 Taxman 20(P &H), Jai Pulse Mills, D-Bench, Ahmedabad 39 SOT 312, In view of the above facts that all the gross profit rate declared by the assessee is quite fair and reasonable, books of accounts were maintained in accordance with…

DR. HARVINDER SINGH,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is alloweci

ITA 5746/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg. [Assessment Year: 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sapra; Adv-

Section 68

…fficient reasons to ■indicate that, they are unreliable. The department has to prove satisfactorily that the account books are unreliable, incorrect or incomplete before it can reject the accounts. Rejection of accounts should not be done light heartedly". j 291 ITR 214, Pyare Lai Mittal vs. ACIT (Gauhajti H.C.), in which it had been held as under j i / i “Income has to be deduced from the books of account and other documents furnished and there is no scope for any conjectures and surmises. If the method of accounting is not faulty and there is no suppression of material facts, the authority cannot embark upon…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI vs. TELECOM FINANCE (INDIA) LTD.

ITA - 551 / 2010HC Delhi12 Sept 2012

…indings of fact, by the Tribunal are perverse and contrary to materials on record and based on surmises and conjectures, the High Court under Section 260A would be competent to interfere [Ref. Pyarelal Mittal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2007] 291 ITR 214 (Gauhati), Gaurikanta Barkataky v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 313 ITR 34 (Gauhati)] 17. The basis of the AO’s order for treating the transactions as bogus was that the lease and sublease transactions were, in fact, an arrangement to give the colour of a lease to a transaction which in substance is that of finance/loan. This, the AO…