Malik Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT

162 Taxmann 43Reported decision#10263 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Judgments citing Malik Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT- CC- 6(4), MUMBAI vs. JAILAXMI REALTY AND DEVELOPERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1425/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69C

…d in different villages. None of the seller has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands. 24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor‘s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards u…

JCIT (OSD) CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI vs. KRUPA LAND LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…in different villages. None of the seller has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands. 24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor‘s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards u…

EKDANTA LAND PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1400/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “ए” पुणे "यायपीठ पुणे पुणे म"म"म"म" पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सु"ी सुषमा सु"ी सुषमा चावला चावला, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ी "ी डी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव राव, लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सम" सु"ी सु"ी सुषमा सुषमा चावला चावला "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "ी "ी डी डी क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव राव लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य सम" सम" BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA No.1400/PUN/20…

GREEN REALTY P.LTD,URAN vs. ITO 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5667/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Greenary Realty Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Office No.D-416, 7Th Floor, Ward 10(3)(2), Aayakar Vs. Plot No.6, Sector-11, Bhavan, Mumbai Dronagiri, Tal-Uran-400702 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaccg6806D

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: R.P. Meena, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM Greenary Realty Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer, Office No.D-416, 7th Floor, Ward 10(3)(2), Aayakar Vs. Plot No.6, Sector-11, Bhavan, Mumbai Dronagiri, Tal-Uran-400702 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AACCG6806D Assessee by : Madhur Agarwal, AR Revenue by : R.P. Meena, DR Date of hearing: 08-11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal N…

HARSHA LAND P.LTD,URAN vs. ITO 10(3)(2), MUMBAI

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of over above order

ITA 5666/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5666/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Harsha Land Private Limited Income Tax Officer 10(3)(2) Office No.D-416, 7Th Floor Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot No. 6, Sector-11 Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Dronagiri, Tal Uran – 400 702 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabch-9709-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Madhur Agarwal,Ld.Ar Revenue By : T.A.Khan, Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 03/10/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/11 /2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal,Ld.ARFor Respondent: T.A.Khan, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…os. 5664/Mum/2015 & Others, order dated 27/10/2016] The operative part of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 8237/Mum/2011 is reproduced below:- 24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt.Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assesse purchased the property allegedly for Rs.6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs.45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor’s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs.39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards unexp…

SHIVANSH REALTY P.LTD,URAN vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5668/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…course of search which also formed basis of addition in the hands of the assessee. The relevant para of the Tribunal order is reproduced below : “24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor’s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards u…

SHIVANSH LAND INFRASTRUCTURE P.LTD,URAN vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5665/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…course of search which also formed basis of addition in the hands of the assessee. The relevant para of the Tribunal order is reproduced below : “24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor’s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards u…

TIMBLE REALTY P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5664/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5664/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Timble Reality Pvt Ltd., बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 10(3)(4), F No.2, Bldg, Gh 10, Dronagiri Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Housing Complex, Sector-30, M K Road, P O Bokadvira, Mumbai-400020 Tal.Uran-400702 (अपीऱधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…course of search which also formed basis of addition in the hands of the assessee. The relevant para of the Tribunal order is reproduced below : “24. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Malik Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 162 Taxmann 43 which is relied upon by the Ld. DR. In that case, the assessee purchased the property allegedly for Rs. 6 lakhs. The vendor in her statement confirmed that the sale consideration of said property was Rs. 45 lakhs and paid tax thereon. In view of vendor’s statement, the AO made an addition of Rs. 39 lakhs to the income of the assessee towards u…

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2719/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Rajan Prasad
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 69B

…1 Satypal Jain ITA No.2718/Mum/2013 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. : 2719/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ITA No. : 2718/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2007-08) Satypal Jain, Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income 82, Maker Chamber, Tax- Central Circle -39, III, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400 021 Mumbai "थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AABPJ 1888 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vijay Mehta : Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Rajan Prasad…

SATYAPAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CETRAL CIRCLE - 39, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2718/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Rajan Prasad
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 23(1)(a)Section 69B

…1 Satypal Jain ITA No.2718/Mum/2013 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. : 2719/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2006-07) ITA No. : 2718/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2007-08) Satypal Jain, Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income 82, Maker Chamber, Tax- Central Circle -39, III, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400 021 Mumbai "थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AABPJ 1888 Q अपीलाथ" (Appellant) ""यथ" (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Vijay Mehta : Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Rajan Prasad…

Malik Bros (P) Ltd. v. CIT (162 Taxmann 43) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax