Kumar v. ITO

63 ITD 153Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1997#6526 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Kumar v. ITO

VIJAY SOLVEX LTD,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the writ petition of Dr

ITA 357/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the various entries. The evidence collected should be such that any reasonable man would accept the hypothesis advanced by the revenue that the figures written on the right side of the slip represents income earned by the assessee. ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Mum.) (Trib.) The head note of the decision reads as under:- Income—Addition to income—Addition on the basis of contents of figure in loose paper—Findings of the AO wherein he has considered the figures of 1,77,052, 1,50,000 and 11,100 as assesses income for this assessment year—Figure of Rs. 1,77,052 has been taken as commission earned by the as…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAJESTIC PROPERTIES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to above were considered as assessee’s income, we are of the opinion that the AO has not invoked any of the deeming provisions of Sections 69 to 69D and therefore, it is clear that these figures have…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MANSUKH T. TIMBADIA,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 72/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Smt. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1713/PUN/2015 निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mansukh Timbadia, Manitej, Plot No. 3, Road No. 7, Sector – 1, New Panvel, Raigad – 410206 PAN : AAPPT1888C .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Circle ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.72/PUN/2016 निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income T…

MANSUKH TIMBADIA,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1713/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Smt. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1713/PUN/2015 निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mansukh Timbadia, Manitej, Plot No. 3, Road No. 7, Sector – 1, New Panvel, Raigad – 410206 PAN : AAPPT1888C .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Circle ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.72/PUN/2016 निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner of Income T…

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Shri Deepak Valji Karia Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Dhakeshwati Cotton Mills v. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii). Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii). ACIT v. Shailest Shah [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (iv). Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 4. In any case, in view of SEBI Report, the very basis got away. All such material / statements -/ information have no base / relevance. Most importantly, even SEBI found the information of the Investigation Wing untrue. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case la…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ROHAN DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…atwarlal Shah v. Assn. CIT [1997] 60ITD 560, 564- 565(Ahd.). • In the absence of any evidence about the nature of figures noted on loose paper seized, date, name of party etc., no addition can be made merely upon suspicion. Asstt. CITv. Shailesh S.Shah [1997] 63 ITD 153 (Bom.). Brijlal Rupchand vs. ITO [1991] 40 TTJ 668 (Indore). • Vague noting on loose paper found during the course of search proceedings of sister concern and there being no material on record to suggest that the assessee has in fact received the amounts written on the loose paper, apart from and in addition to the amount received by the assessee…

ROHAN DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3801/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Gosh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…atwarlal Shah v. Assn. CIT [1997] 60ITD 560, 564- 565(Ahd.). • In the absence of any evidence about the nature of figures noted on loose paper seized, date, name of party etc., no addition can be made merely upon suspicion. Asstt. CITv. Shailesh S.Shah [1997] 63 ITD 153 (Bom.). Brijlal Rupchand vs. ITO [1991] 40 TTJ 668 (Indore). • Vague noting on loose paper found during the course of search proceedings of sister concern and there being no material on record to suggest that the assessee has in fact received the amounts written on the loose paper, apart from and in addition to the amount received by the assessee…

ROHINI HOTEL (MADRAS) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1842/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

…r search. 1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC) 3. Amar Natwaralal Shaw Vs ACIT (1967) 60 ITD 560(Ahd) 4. lAshwani Kumar Vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 ITAT (Delhi) 5. ACIT Vs Shallesh S shaw (1997) 63 ITD 153(Bom) 6. CIT Vs Daya Chand Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280(A11) 7. ITO Vs Chimbareswara Rao (1986) 15 ITD 471(Hyd Trib) Submission on facts on legal for valuation reports and certifying accounting books Assessment year 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 B) Notwithstanding the main submission on violation of principles of natural justice the following submissions ar…

ROHINI HOTEL (MADRAS) PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1841/CHNY/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

…r search. 1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC) 3. Amar Natwaralal Shaw Vs ACIT (1967) 60 ITD 560(Ahd) 4. lAshwani Kumar Vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 ITAT (Delhi) 5. ACIT Vs Shallesh S shaw (1997) 63 ITD 153(Bom) 6. CIT Vs Daya Chand Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280(A11) 7. ITO Vs Chimbareswara Rao (1986) 15 ITD 471(Hyd Trib) Submission on facts on legal for valuation reports and certifying accounting books Assessment year 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 B) Notwithstanding the main submission on violation of principles of natural justice the following submissions ar…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2) , CHENNAI vs. ROHINI HOTELS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1687/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

…r search. 1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC) 3. Amar Natwaralal Shaw Vs ACIT (1967) 60 ITD 560(Ahd) 4. lAshwani Kumar Vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 ITAT (Delhi) 5. ACIT Vs Shallesh S shaw (1997) 63 ITD 153(Bom) 6. CIT Vs Daya Chand Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280(A11) 7. ITO Vs Chimbareswara Rao (1986) 15 ITD 471(Hyd Trib) Submission on facts on legal for valuation reports and certifying accounting books Assessment year 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 B) Notwithstanding the main submission on violation of principles of natural justice the following submissions ar…

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2) , CHENNAI vs. ROHINI HOTELS (MADRAS) PVT. LTD. , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1627/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.S.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

…r search. 1. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775 2. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC) 3. Amar Natwaralal Shaw Vs ACIT (1967) 60 ITD 560(Ahd) 4. lAshwani Kumar Vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 ITAT (Delhi) 5. ACIT Vs Shallesh S shaw (1997) 63 ITD 153(Bom) 6. CIT Vs Daya Chand Vaidya (1975) 98 ITR 280(A11) 7. ITO Vs Chimbareswara Rao (1986) 15 ITD 471(Hyd Trib) Submission on facts on legal for valuation reports and certifying accounting books Assessment year 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 B) Notwithstanding the main submission on violation of principles of natural justice the following submissions ar…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the assessment stage but also at the appellate stage. The Assessing Officer had no comment to offer on this, meaning thereb…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the assessment stage but also at the appellate stage. The Assessing Officer had no comment to offer on this, meaning thereb…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, VADODARA vs. M/S. SHREE DHAIN AUTO TRANSPORT CORPN., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…spicion, conjectures and surmises. In Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT 87 TTJ 151 (Delhi) wherein the Tribunal held a similar view that in absence of any corroborative evidence, the addition on the basis of entry on loose paper was unjustified. ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Mum.) - Held that addition cannot be made under substantive provision of the Act without proving the contents of the loose papers. Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del.) where the addition on the basis of uncorroborated chit of paper was found to be unsustainable where the assessing officer had not examined the assessee nor brought any other…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SANJAY TANEJA, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the AO are allowed with above direction

ITA 6815/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Sanjay Taneja, Central Circle-18, 198/1, Ramesh Market, New Delhi East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan: Aaept8805A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Matta, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 14ASection 69A

…found recorded against the 13 names belong to the appellant and interest was earned thereon. I place reliance on the judicial precedents of the following cases: 1. Amar Natvar Lai Shah Vs ACIT (1997) 60ITD 560, 564-565 (Ahd) 2. ACIT Vs Shailesh S Shah (1997) 63 ITD 153 (Bombay) ACIT Vs. Sanjay Taneja 3. Malabar Marketing Company Vs ACIT (2004) 91 TTJ 348 (Mumbai) 4. DD Malhan Vs. DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 947 (Del) 5. Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2006) 99 ITD 177 (Del) 6. CIT Vs Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296ITR 619 (Del) Therefore, this document is nothing but a dumb document in the absence of any other material that…

NAVNEET JHAMB,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…T 61 TTJ 223 (Mum): 101 Taxman 324 R. Ramanathan Vs. ACIT 65 ITD 108 (Mad) Navneet Jhamb Vs ACIT ITA No. 1609, 1608, 1610, 1611 and 1612 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04 and 2006-07) Parakh Foods Ltd. Vs. DCIT 64 ITD 396 (Pune) 63 TTJ 532(Del)/ 63 ITD 153(Mum). 5.2 In this case written submissions of the AR were sent to AO for his report. AO submitted his report vide his common letter No. ACIT/CC-I/FBD/08-09/1079 dated 28-01-2009 for AYs 2000- 01 to 2006-07 copy of which is enclosed with this order. 5.3 Copy of above report was given to the assessee for his rejoinder. Assessee made his submissions…