Ltd. vs. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 29 (Cal). Y. Rajan vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 839 (AP) CIT v. Jeskaran Bhuvalka

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A & D Estates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result we upheld the decision of the Ld

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13

…vant to the purpose of the section as was held in the following cases Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 29 (Cal). Y. Rajan vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 839 (AP) CIT vs. Jeskaran Bhuvalka (1970) 76 ITR 128, 140 (AP) Muni Lai Ram Dayal Vs. ITO (1970) 76 ITR 151, 156 (Orissa) Dilip Chand Agarwal Vs. ITO (1974) Tax LR 865 (Orissa). The belief of the AO. should not thus be a product or imagination or speculation The belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. His belief must not be based on mere suspicion. It is open to an assessee to establish that there in fact existe…

Vishwas Kohli, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 59(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2013-14 Vishwas Kohli, Vs. Ito, Ward 59(5), G-273, 2Nd Floor, Preet Vihar New Delhi New Delhi- Pin: 1100 92 Pan No. Anqpk5472M (Appellant) (Respondent)

…made therein , affidavits are to be rejected as afterthought. Reliance is placed on Technical Glass Ind. Vs. CIT 281 ITR 61; Chowkchand Balabux vs. CIT (Assam) 41 ITR 465; Blowell Auto (P) Ltd. vs. ACTT (PH)11 DTR 91; and Munilal Ramdayal vs. ITO & Ors. (Ori) 76 ITR 151. In view of the above, as the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is not proved, the Assessing Officer is fully justified in adding the said sum of Rs.69,20,000 under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal fails in this regard.” 9. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee's burden is confined to pro…

M/S. Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Haridwar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

…efore, the genuineness of the affidavits are also not proved. The above view finds support from the decisions in the case of Technical Glass Industries v/s CIT(All) 281 ITR 61, Chowkchand Balabux v/s CIT(Assam)41 ITR 465, Munilal Ramdayal v/s ITO & ors. (Ori) 76 ITR 151. From the above it is evident that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the milk purchases from the above vendors. In view of the above, AO is fully justified in disallowing 20% of the purchase of milk i.e. of Rs 60,84,325/-. Therefore the disallowance made by the AO is sustained. The appeal fails in this ground.” 18 16. As with regard…

Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

…yanappa & Ors. vs. CIT, (1967) 63 ITR 0219 (SC). • Calcutta Discount CO. Ltd. vs. ITO & ANR. (1961) 41 ITR 0191 (SC). • Ganga Saran & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (1971) 82 ITR 29 (Cal). • Y. Rajan vs. ITO (1970) 77 ITR 839 (AP). • Muni Lai Ram Dayal Vs. ITO (1970) 76 ITR 151 (Orissa). 6.3 Further reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions wherein its has been held that in absence of specific allegation in the reason record, the reopening and re-assessment order so passed is bad in law : • Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, (2017) 398 ITR 0198 (Del.) • Austin Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. JOT, (2009) 312 ITR 00…