Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT

304 ITR 52High Court2008#772 most cited

What is Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT authority for?

When assessing income from undisclosed or unrecorded sales, the entire sale proceeds cannot be added to the assessee's income; instead, only the net profit embedded in such unaccounted sales, determined by applying the assessee's net profit rate, should be taxed.

132

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT · undisclosed sales income · unaccounted sales addition · net profit rate application · entire sale proceeds not to be added · Section 153A search assessment · Section 132 search and seizure · best judgment assessment undisclosed sales · on-money income computation · rejection of books of account profit rate · 304 ITR 52

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 277

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69CSection 115BBESection 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 132Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptexplanation to section 37principal officersurvey under section 133asection 192section 145(3)rejection of books of accountblock periodsection 145on-moneyloose paperssection 40(a)(i)

Judgments citing Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT

Parthavi Construction Private Limited, Raipur vs. Assistat Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/RPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 93 To 99/Rpr/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S. Parthivi Constructions Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Vs. Parthivi Pacific, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-1, Raipur Commercial Complex, Near (C.G.) Axis Bank, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp4406G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri R. K. Singh, Cit.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : 09/08/2021 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 26/10/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DRFor Respondent: 09/08/2021
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…08) 302 ITR 63 (Guj); CIT vs. Babulal K. Daga (2016) 387 ITR 114 (Guj); CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP); Anil Kumar Bajaj vs. DCIT in ITA No.4392/Del/2014; Hariram Brambhani Vs. ACIT in ITA No.5067/Mum/2010; Man Mohan Sadani Vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 52 etc…. In these decisions, it has been held that only profit can be taxed and not the entire receipts. 6.3 Having considered the facts of the case and the consistent position of law echoed by the Hon’ble High Courts and Co-ordinate Benches, we find merit in the plea of the assessee that the Assessing Officer was not justified in bringing to tax th…

Dhani Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2817/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2817/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Dhani Ram, Ward-38(2), Room No. H.No.156, Pkt.B-9, DDA 1006, E-2 Block, vs. Flats, Sector-5, Rohini, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 085. Civic Centre, PAN AENPR3894N Delhi -110002. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directe…

ACIT (Central) 1 Indore, Indore vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, Ratlam

ITA 886/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.42/Ind/2018 Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Kantilal Kataria DCIT(Central) 63, Chowmukhi Pool, Indore बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.ACFPK5786Q Assessment Year:2011-12 JCIT(Central)-1 Shri Kantilal Kataria Indore 63, Chowmukhi Pool, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) P.A. No. ACFPK5786Q Assessment Year:2012-13 ACIT(Central)-1 Shri Kantilal Kataria Indore 63, Chowmukhi Pool, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellan…

JCIT OSD (Central)-1, Ratlam vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, Ratlam

ITA 259/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2021

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE RAJPAL YADAV HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.42/Ind/2018 Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Kantilal Kataria DCIT(Central) 63, Chowmukhi Pool, Indore बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.ACFPK5786Q Assessment Year:2011-12 JCIT(Central)-1 Shri Kantilal Kataria Indore 63, Chowmukhi Pool, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) P.A. No. ACFPK5786Q Assessment Year:2012-13 ACIT(Central)-1 Shri Kantilal Kataria Indore 63, Chowmukhi Pool, बनाम/ Ratlam Vs. (Appellan…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Lakhi Gems, Jaipur

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1306/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

…rate of 77% which is a impossibility. In any case the unrecorded sales itself can’t be considered as income. At the most, the gross profit on such sales can be considered as income. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- • Mohan Sadhani Vs. CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) • CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) • CIT Vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Guj) 31. It was further submitted that in course of search, the stock found was valued at Rs. 23,69,75,523/-. After considering the book stock of M/s Bihari Lal Holaram and of the assessee firm at Rs. 18,98,37,741/-, the excess stock was determined at…

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…he view of the Tribunal accepting only the profit of unaccounted sale for the purpose of collecting tax. 13. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the M. P. High Court in the case of Man Mohan Sadani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2008) 304 ITR 52, wherein referring to and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries (supra) and other decisions of other High Courts, the M. P. High Court had also taken a similar view. It was observed that entire sale proceeds of the assessee should not be added in his income and that the Tribunal h…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. Shri Ganpati Developers, Kota

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 1348/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1348/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., cuke M/s Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZFS 8967 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. No. 08/JP/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 1348/JP/2018) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/s Shri Ganpati Devel…

M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village Post-Patan, Tehsil-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer, Kishangarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 861/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 115BSection 263Section 3Section 69A

…ccounted sale for the purpose of collecting tax. 23 M/s Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. PCIT, Jaipur 13. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the M. P. High Court in the case of Man Mohan Sadani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2008) 304 ITR 52, wherein referring to and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. President Industries (supra) and other decisions of other High Courts, the M. P. High Court had also taken a similar view. It was observed that entire sale proceeds of the assessee should not be added in his income and that the Tribunal h…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…restricted to the profit element. Reliance was placed on various decisions including CIT vs. President Industries: 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT v. Gurubachan Singh J. Juneja: 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar: 263 ITR 610 (MP), Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT: 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT v. S.M. Omer.: 201 ITR 608 (Cal) and host of other decisions. 64. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in the absence of any explanation, the AO has rightly made addition of unaccounted sales. 65. After considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of the records, we find that thi…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…restricted to the profit element. Reliance was placed on various decisions including CIT vs. President Industries: 258 ITR 654 (Guj.), CIT v. Gurubachan Singh J. Juneja: 302 ITR 63 (Guj.), CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar: 263 ITR 610 (MP), Man Mohan Sadani v. CIT: 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT v. S.M. Omer.: 201 ITR 608 (Cal) and host of other decisions. 64. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that in the absence of any explanation, the AO has rightly made addition of unaccounted sales. 65. After considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of the records, we find that thi…

The ITO, Sendhwa vs. Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2011-12 Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Respondent Assessment Year 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Revenue V/s Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Respondent Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronounceme…

Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO, Khargon

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2011-12 Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Appellant V/s Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Respondent Assessment Year 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Sendhwa (M.P) : Revenue V/s Shri Dwarka Prasad Tayal, 4, Jawahar Ganj, Sendhwa (M.P) PAN : AAOPT4070B : Respondent Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Date of Hearing 09.09.2020 Date of Pronounceme…

Crp Associates, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Cirle, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1901/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1901/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Crp Associates Acit, Gandhinagar Cir. 117, First Floor Vs Gandhinagar. Suman City, Sector 11 Gandhinagar 382 010. Pan : Aaffc 9454 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Shri P.B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…n - Tax Appeal No.323 of 2000 (Guj) (Annexure "D"); ii) CIT vs. President Industries - 258 ITR 654 (Guj.); iii) CIT vs. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja - 302 ITR 63 (Guj); iv) CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill - 326 ITR 410 (Guj); v) Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT - (2008) 304 ITR 52 (MP); CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar - (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) vi) 5. In his next fold of contentions, he submitted that this amount would become part of the business income, and accordingly, partners are entitled for remuneration as well as interest against this amount. He pointed out that this aspect was pleaded before the ld.CIT(A) wherein the as…

M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range-3, Jalandhar

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

ITA 669/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

…od and the AO has added the entire estimation of sales , which could not be justified as only profit element should have been considered for addition. In support of this contention the counsel has relied on following case laws : Manmohan Sadani v. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) , CIT v. Balchnad Ajit Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP) 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO has estimated sales based on consumption. However…

M/S Grand Lilly Limited, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

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

ITA 667/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A Nos.667 To 669 /Asr/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Ys.:2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" M/S. Grand Lilly Motels Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Model Town, Jalandhar Income Tax, Pan: Aabcj 4527 E Circle- Iii, Jalandhar अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ"

…od and the AO has added the entire estimation of sales , which could not be justified as only profit element should have been considered for addition. In support of this contention the counsel has relied on following case laws : Manmohan Sadani v. CIT [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP), CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) , CIT v. Balchnad Ajit Kumar [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP) 10. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the AO has estimated sales based on consumption. However…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. M/S. Anupam Organiser, Surat

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2036/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2036/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of V Anupam Organiser, Income Tax, S. F.P.No.12/13, Tp No.37, Central Circle-4, Surat. Nr. Bhumi Residency, Althan, Surat. [Pan: Aarfa 6954 C] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay –Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari - Cit-Dr

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ITR 654 (Guj.) d. Dy. CIT vs. Panna Corporation [2012] 74 DTR 89 (Guj-HC) e. CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar [MP HC] 263 ITR 610. f. CIT vs. Samir Synthetics Mill [2010] 326 ITR 410 (Guj) g. CIT vs. President Industries (Guj HC), 258 ITR h. Mohan Sadhani Vs. CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) i. Agrawal Motors Vs ACIT68 ITD 407 (Jab), j. Sharda Real Estate Pnt.Ltd., ... vs A CIT, Ujjian (Judgment dated 21 August, 2012) ITAT, Indore Bench I.T(SS).A.Nos. I l l , 112 & 189/lnd/2012 A.Ys. : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 k. Jay Builders VS. ACIT Tax Appeal No. 255 of 2012 [Guj-HC]: In this case, the honorable jurisdictional HC has held th…

M/S. Shiv Pujan Developers, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/S.Shiv Pujan Develpers Ito, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/O. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, Abf-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. Pan : Abtfs 2833 H

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ressing this contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) DCIT Vs. Panna Corporation, Tax Appeal No.323 of 2000 (Guj) ii) CIT Vs. President Industries, 258 IR 654 (Guj) iii) CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar, 263 ITR 610 (MP) iv) Man Mohan Sadani Vs. CIT, 304 ITR 52 (MP) 4 5. In order to demonstrate the amount requires to be added back or quantification of the profit involved in the alleged on-money, he submitted that the assessee-firm has started its business from the Asstt.Year 2011-12 to 2016-17. The turnover and profit ratio has been compiled in tabular form, which has been filed along with synopsis durin…

Dinanath Ornament Stores, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1307/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabfd 9969 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.72,973/- For The Assessment Year 2005- 06, Rs. 87,925/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07 On 31/03/2007, Rs.1,04,340/-

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…06/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income from undiscl…

Dinanath Ornament Stores, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1306/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabfd 9969 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.72,973/- For The Assessment Year 2005- 06, Rs. 87,925/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07 On 31/03/2007, Rs.1,04,340/-

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…06/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income from undiscl…

Dinanath Ornament Stores, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Haldia (Now ITO, Ward - 27(1), Haldia)

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1305/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara] I.T.A. No. 1304/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06 I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 I.T.A. No. 1306/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores….………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant C/O., D.J. Shah & Co Kalyan Bhawan 2, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabfd 9969 G] Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haldia......................................................….………..…......Respondent (Now) Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Jcit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 20Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 23Rd, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- All These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 7, Kolkata, (Ld. Cit(A)) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 21/03/2017 For The Assessment Years 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2009-10. 2. As The Issues Arising In All These Appeals Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Filed Its Return Of Income On 31/03/2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.72,973/- For The Assessment Year 2005- 06, Rs. 87,925/- For The Assessment Year 2006-07 On 31/03/2007, Rs.1,04,340/-

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…06/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 I.T.A. No. 1307/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinanath Ornament Stores Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar reported in [2003] 263 ITR 610 (MP), & Man Mohan Sadani vs. CIT reported in [2008] 304 ITR 52 (MP) for the same proposition. 6.1. The ld. D/R could not cite before this Bench any contrary judgment. Under these circumstances, we apply the proposition of law laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, referred above, and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income from undiscl…