Ltd. v. DCIT

22 SOT 7Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#848 most cited

What is Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An adverse inference cannot be drawn against an assessee based on a document found with a third party during a search, as possession is only attributable to the searched person. An addition to income based solely on an undated, unsigned seized document, without further corroborative evidence or inquiry, is not sustainable.

123

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT · Section 153C · Section 132 · Section 69 · document seized · third party possession · adverse inference · undated unsigned document · unexplained investment · block assessment · incriminating evidence

Also reported as

102 TTJ 235152 ITD 320

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 131Section 132(4)Section 292CSection 132(4A)Section 271AABSection 69Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 153c(1)section 132(4a)section 292csection 34satisfaction notesection 132(1)loose paperssection 153a(1)documents seizedsection 292section 158bsection 132a

Judgments citing Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…by the person in whose account such transaction has been entered . Keeping in view all these facts Ld. CIT(A) has held that explanation to section 73 would not be applicable in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Parker Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 TTJ 235. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant portion from the said decision and has granted impugned relief to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned ground. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO, as against that Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITA No.3756/Mum/2012 in Asst. CIT vs. IDFC SSKI…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…by the person in whose account such transaction has been entered . Keeping in view all these facts Ld. CIT(A) has held that explanation to section 73 would not be applicable in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Parker Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 TTJ 235. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant portion from the said decision and has granted impugned relief to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned ground. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO, as against that Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITA No.3756/Mum/2012 in Asst. CIT vs. IDFC SSKI…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…by the person in whose account such transaction has been entered . Keeping in view all these facts Ld. CIT(A) has held that explanation to section 73 would not be applicable in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Parker Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 TTJ 235. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant portion from the said decision and has granted impugned relief to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned ground. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO, as against that Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITA No.3756/Mum/2012 in Asst. CIT vs. IDFC SSKI…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…by the person in whose account such transaction has been entered . Keeping in view all these facts Ld. CIT(A) has held that explanation to section 73 would not be applicable in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Parker Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 TTJ 235. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant portion from the said decision and has granted impugned relief to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned ground. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO, as against that Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITA No.3756/Mum/2012 in Asst. CIT vs. IDFC SSKI…

Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7183/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Avery Dennison (I) Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Circle -3(2), New Delhi P-24, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, Delhi Pan :Aaaca6163D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Tomar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2018 Order

Section 144Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…/ reasons to support such rejection (reference is invited to the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd: 113 ITR 389 @ page 392 (Del)). Reliance in this regard is also placed on Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs DCIT (2005 98 TTJ 565 Delhi ITAT) wherein the Hon'ble ITAT acknowledged that the auditor had duly verified the genuineness claim while undertaking an audit for this year without raising any qualifications and hence the addition made by Ld. AO is bad and void ab-initio. 5. However, the Ld. AO without providing any cogent reasons for such Action, rejected the books o acc…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sud Chemie India P. Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 41/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…e is in appeal before us for both the assessment years. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A similar view was taken in the ITAT Bangalore in Quality Engineering and Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 152 ITD 320 wherein it was held as follows:- “We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, the submissions made and the judicial decisions placed reliance upon. It would be relevant to briefly examine the concept of "derivatives" and the underlying nature of these transactions before deciding whether they…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Sud Chemie India P. Ltd, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

…e is in appeal before us for both the assessment years. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. A similar view was taken in the ITAT Bangalore in Quality Engineering and Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 152 ITD 320 wherein it was held as follows:- “We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record, the submissions made and the judicial decisions placed reliance upon. It would be relevant to briefly examine the concept of "derivatives" and the underlying nature of these transactions before deciding whether they…

Dy. C.I.T.1(1), Bilaspur(Cg) vs. Jspl, Raigarh(C.G)

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 210/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Dcit-1(1), Bilaspur- Vs Jspl, 495004 Kharsia Road, Raighagh(Cg) Pan No. : Aabcj 4683 J (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Shri Mayank Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 15/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 31.03.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Amount To The Extent Of Rs.2,10,89,707/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.3,36,18,098/- Made By The Ao Under The Head Corporate Social Responsibility Expenses. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company, A Subsidiary Of Jindal Steel &.Power Limited (Jspl). It Derives Income From Power Generation & Mining. The Company Has Commenced The Commercial Generation Of Thermal Power From Its First Of The Four Units Of 250Mw Each From 08.12.2007. The Assessee Company Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…s. Travencore Cochine Chemicals Ltd 243 1TR 284 (Ker.), Palani Andavar Mills Vs. CIT 110 ITR 284 (Ker.), Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. CIT 166 ITR 836 (Mad), CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 281 ITR 408 (Raj.), Bhatar Heavy Electrical Ltd. Vs. DCIT 98 TTJ 565 (Del), Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 125, etc.. Similarly, construction of roads and culverts for providing easier access for its workman and movement of goods are admissible expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. [Relied on CIT Vs. Coats Viyella India Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 667 (Mad.), Sugar Factory & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1980) 125ITR 293…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1079/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…arched parties.” 15.1 Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”): 1. Natural Products Biotech Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2015) 153 ITD 58 (Delhi) 2. DSL Properties Private Limited Vs. DCIT, (2013) 60 SOT 88 (Delhi) 3. Tanvir collections (p) Ltd Vs. ACIT, (2015) 153 ITD 486 (Delhi) 4. Satkar Fincap Limited Vs. ACIT, (2016) 66 taxmann.com 107 (Delhi-Trib) 5. ACIT Vs. Command Detective and Securities Private Limited (ITA No. 4129-4134/Del/2012) 15.2 Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: 1. Pepsi Foods Priva…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 1074/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…arched parties.” 15.1 Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”): 1. Natural Products Biotech Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2015) 153 ITD 58 (Delhi) 2. DSL Properties Private Limited Vs. DCIT, (2013) 60 SOT 88 (Delhi) 3. Tanvir collections (p) Ltd Vs. ACIT, (2015) 153 ITD 486 (Delhi) 4. Satkar Fincap Limited Vs. ACIT, (2016) 66 taxmann.com 107 (Delhi-Trib) 5. ACIT Vs. Command Detective and Securities Private Limited (ITA No. 4129-4134/Del/2012) 15.2 Reliance has been placed on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: 1. Pepsi Foods Priva…

DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Merill Lynch Internatinal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3916/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Shamim Yahyaassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit(It)-3(2)(1), Merril Lynch International, Mumbai C/O- M/S G.M. Kapadia & Co बनाम/ 1101, Raheja Chambers, Vs. 213, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan No.Aabcm1026G (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…establishment of the assessee situated in India and, accordingly the aforesaid income is not liable to tax in India. The assessee relied upon various case laws before the CIT(A) including the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Raymond Ltd. V. DCIT (2003) 80 TTJ 120 (Mum.). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) held as under:- “5.12……………..I have considered the appellant’s submission and I agree with the appellant that it had opted to be governed by the provisions of the DTAA and that the provisions of the DTAA ought to apply to the appellant. Section 90(2) of the IT Act makes it very…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 5470/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR
Section 36

…by the person in whose account such transaction has been entered . Keeping in view all these facts Ld. CIT(A) has held that explanation to section 73 would not be applicable in view of the decision of ITAT in the case of M/s. Parker Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT, 102 TTJ 235. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant portion from the said decision and has granted impugned relief to the assessee. The Revenue is aggrieved, hence, has filed aforementioned ground. 8.1 Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by AO, as against that Ld. AR has relied upon the following decisions: 1. ITA No.3756/Mum/2012 in Asst. CIT vs. IDFC SSKI…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 114/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. ii. SM Energy Teknik and Electronics Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 61 taxman.com 448 (Mum. ITAT) iii. CIT vs Delite Enterprises (ITA No.110 of 2009) (Bom.) iv. Quality Engineering and Software technologies Ltd. vs DCIT(2015) 152 ITD 320 (Bang.) and v. Anriya Project Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT TS-99-ITAT-2015 (Bang.) 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a holding company of Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd., engaged, inter-alia, in providing investment research ad…

Addl CIT RG 1(2), Mumbai vs. Morgan Stanley India Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, then the cross objections of the assessee will become in-fructuous

ITA 113/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years: 2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 14A

…Morgan Stanley India Securities Pvt. Ltd. ii. SM Energy Teknik and Electronics Ltd. vs DCIT (2015) 61 taxman.com 448 (Mum. ITAT) iii. CIT vs Delite Enterprises (ITA No.110 of 2009) (Bom.) iv. Quality Engineering and Software technologies Ltd. vs DCIT(2015) 152 ITD 320 (Bang.) and v. Anriya Project Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT TS-99-ITAT-2015 (Bang.) 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a holding company of Morgan Stanley India Company Pvt. Ltd., engaged, inter-alia, in providing investment research ad…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modi Apollo International Group Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 223/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri L.P. Sahu & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 195Section 35ASection 40

…/s Kotak Securities Ltd. (SLP © No. 19907/2012). Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • DIT vs Guy Carpenter and Co. Ltd.: 207 Taxman 121 (Delhi) • CIT vs De Beers India Minerals (P) Ltd.: 208 Taxman 406 (Karnataka) • Raymond Limited Vs DCIT: 80 TTJ 120 (Mum. ITAT) Since, the aforesaid payment made to Apollo International Inc USA does not involve making available of technical knowledge, the same does not constitute fee for included services in terms of Article 12 of the DTAA with USA and, therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source from such payment under section 195 of the Act and th…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 6204/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in favour of assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21.1.2015. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in the following cases :- i) Parkar Securities Ltd., 102 TTJ 235 (Ahd); and ii) Rajvi Securities (P) Ltd., 50 SOT 592. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on Vanda loss. 10. The revenue is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of mark to ma…

ACIT CC 22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5788/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in favour of assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21.1.2015. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in the following cases :- i) Parkar Securities Ltd., 102 TTJ 235 (Ahd); and ii) Rajvi Securities (P) Ltd., 50 SOT 592. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on Vanda loss. 10. The revenue is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of mark to ma…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Central Circle 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 4581/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in favour of assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21.1.2015. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in the following cases :- i) Parkar Securities Ltd., 102 TTJ 235 (Ahd); and ii) Rajvi Securities (P) Ltd., 50 SOT 592. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on Vanda loss. 10. The revenue is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of mark to ma…

A.C.I.T. C.C.22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 7463/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in favour of assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21.1.2015. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in the following cases :- i) Parkar Securities Ltd., 102 TTJ 235 (Ahd); and ii) Rajvi Securities (P) Ltd., 50 SOT 592. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on Vanda loss. 10. The revenue is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of mark to ma…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

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

ITA 7328/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…in favour of assessee vide order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21.1.2015. The issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide order of the Tribunal in the following cases :- i) Parkar Securities Ltd., 102 TTJ 235 (Ahd); and ii) Rajvi Securities (P) Ltd., 50 SOT 592. As the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are same, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we confirm the order of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance on Vanda loss. 10. The revenue is also aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in deleting disallowance of mark to ma…