Kumar Sahu vs Utkal University (1969 AIR Orissa HC) (iii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

327 ITR 424High Court2010#9915 most cited
11

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 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 245D(4)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4)search and seizuresection 132section 148personsection 14businessdocument

Judgments citing Kumar Sahu vs Utkal University (1969 AIR Orissa HC) (iii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

SUNIL NAGESH SHET,THANE WEST vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5), THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4547/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Sunil Nageshshet Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane 1/18, Vinayak Bhavan Kolbad Road, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Near Pratap Cinema Thane (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Maharashtra-400601. Wagle Estate, Thane-West, [Pan No. Aegps 2748 B] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)

…ays before passing of the, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) could have given an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the parties. The Ld.CIT(A), in his order on page 29 has relied upon the decision of Smt. KusumLataThakral v CIT [2009] 185 Taxman 237/[2010] 327 ITR 424 (Punjab & Haryana) and substantiated that the cross examination given by the Assessing Officer cannot be taken as an undue advantage by the assessee. It is evident from this that the Ld.CIT(A) has also not given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the parties. It is necessary to specify that the power of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that o…

PNK SPACE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3286/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pnk Space Development Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4) Limited Mumbai 601, Purva Plaza, Shimpoli Road, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 245D(4)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM PNK Space Development Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4) Limited Mumbai 601, Purva Plaza, Shimpoli Road, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAFCP 7042 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh Date of Hearing : 31.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), Nat…

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 56/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…on in an authoritative manner. (i) State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed (1967 AIR 122, SC) (ii) Rabindra Kumar Sahu vs Utkal University (1969 AIR Orissa HC) (iii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT 261 ITR 775 (SC) (iv) Smt. Kusum Lata Thukral 327 ITR 424 (P&H) (v) Nath International Sales and Anr. Vs Union of India And Ors (17-10-1992) (1992 AIR 295 – Delhi) It is also noted that AO at para 8.6 has mentioned that the assessee has vehemently pleaded while relying on some judicial pronouncement in his A/R’s reply to the show cause that the transaction was genuine as it was made through cheque. In…

PARAMJIT SINGH SEEHRA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271

…ld not have had the time to give the opportunity to the assessee, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) could have given an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the parties. The Ld.CIT(A), in his order on page 29 has relied upon the decision of Kusumlata Thakral 327 ITR 424 (P&H) and substantiated that the cross examination given by the Assessing Officer cannot be taken as an undue advantage by the assessee. It is evident from this that the Ld.CIT(A) has also not given opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the parties. It is necessary to specify that the power of CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the Assessi…

M/S. GRM TRADING CO.,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 10/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Chowk, Angul. Chowk, Angul. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aajfg 9627 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shrip.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/6 6/ 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: ShriP.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

…ce is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Hindustan Tobacco Company (27 taxmann.com 155) and Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad (88 taxmann.com 700). 4. In the case of Smt. Kusum Lata Thukral (327 ITR 424) the Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue. In the cited case, the learned authorised representative of the assessee had sought annulment of the order on the ground that the assessee was not allowed to cross-examine the donors. The Honourable High Court disagreed with this preposition. Whatever materia…

DCIT 4(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. BLOCKWELL P.LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly these grounds raised by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 616/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 616, 617& 618/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2009-10 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri V. Justin, DRFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Shah, AR
Section 143(3)

…616, 617 & 618/Mum/2016 Blockwell Pvt. Ltd. cannot be allowed to raise the point that assessee has not been confronted with these evidences by the Sales Tax Department. In this respect, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt Kusum LataThukral (327 ITR 424) had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. In the cited case, the learned authorized representative of the assessee had sought annulment of the order on the ground that the assessee was not allowed to cross examine the donors. The Hon’ble High Court disagreed with this preposition. Whatever material the Assessing Officer had gathered was pu…

APNA FOODS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4566/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4566/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Ms. Retuja Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, DR
Section 68

…see has not been confronted with these evidences by the Sales Tax Department. This objection raised by the assessee was also dealt with by Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon the judgment of I- Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Smt. Kusum LataThukral (327 ITR 424). The operative portion of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 5.2, which is reproduced below:- In the present case, the appellant company has not produced the quantitative details, consumption records, details of transport expenses and stock register showing movement of goods and it has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence to prove t…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

…ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 1 of 77 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 169/2005 Reserved on :1st November, 2017 % Date of decision:23rd April, 2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .…

ARVIND BALKRISHNA GOREGONKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO 21(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6717/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6717/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Arvind Balkrishna Goregaonkar I.T.O.-21(2)(1), B-1305, Bhavya Heights, Mumbai बनाम/ Katrak Road, Near Ram Mandir, Vs. Wadala (W), Mumbai-400 031 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipg 6212 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ajay R. Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…claim of appellant that Mukesh Chokshi was not allowed to be cross examined. However no evidence has been placed on record to suggest that a specific request was made by appellant before the AO to cross examine Mukesh Chokshi. In the case of Kusumlata Thakral 327 ITR 424 (P&H) where though assessee had produced the gift deeds, but the donors had disowned to have made the gifts and no opportunity of cross examination was allowed to assessee to examine the donors, the court still held that it would not in any way affect the inference as the donors and assessee were otherwise also having no love and affection. This…

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…ls against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) were allowed.” 7. Case laws relied by Department:- The case laws (copies of which were made available on 24.08.2016) relied upon by ld. DR are distinguished below:- Case 1:- Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral vs. CIT 327 ITR 424 (P&H) The facts of this case are very different. In this case Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no necessity for cross examination of donor because of the peculiar fact that donor had denied giving gift and there was no relationship between donor and assessee. Attention is drawn towards the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case…

PUSHPAK AUXICHEM P. LTD,THANE vs. ITO WD 1(3), KALYAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3344/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Wd 1(3) 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza 241, B-2, Kasturi Plaza 2Nd Floor, Manpada Road Wayale Nagar Dombivli Khadakpada Thane- 421201 Kalyan (W)- 421 301 Pan/Gir No.Aabcp0099E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 68

…idences as the Sales Tax Department had issued show cause notices to all the beneficiaries including the appellant company and in majority of cases. VAT had also been collected from the beneficiaries including appellant. In the case of Smt Kusum Lata Thukral (327 ITR 424) the Honourable Punjab & Haryana High Court had an occasion to deal with the same issue. In the cited case, the learned authorised representative of the assessee had sought annulment of the order on the ground that the assesses was not allowed to cross examine the donors. The Honourable High Court disagreed with this preposition. Whatever materia…