Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

30 ITR 181Supreme Court of India1956#185 most cited

What is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT · 30 ITR 181 · affidavit not rebutted · binding on AO · facts in affidavit · tax authorities bound by affidavit · statement in affidavit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 147Section 69Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 292cstatement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)panchnamasection 153c(1)loose paperssection 132(4)dumb documents

Judgments citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Megha Property Developers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 398/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Megha Property Vs. Ito-4(2)(4) Room No.647, 6Th Floor Developers Ltd., 701A, Niranjan Aayakar Bhavan 99, Marine Drive M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaffm5593B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 73

…contrary evidence. Hence, we hold that the contents in the said affidavit dated 27/01/2016 are presumed to be true and correct. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC). From the aforesaid various documentary evidences filed by the assessee company before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any justifiable reason for the ld. CIT(A) to come to a conclusion that the transactions in F & O carried out by the assessee as not genuine. We hold that this conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) is contra…

Kota Jayapaul, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1406/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Kota Jayapaul, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 18. Ward-6(2), Pan: Amjpk 7023 L Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.C. Devdas Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

…judgment in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investments P. Ltd (Delhi) 330 ITR 298 (ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. T.I & M Sales Ltd (SC) 166 ITR 093 (iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Metha Parikh and Co. vs. CIT (30 ITR 181) (iv) Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of CIT vs. Victor Electrodes (Delhi) 329 ITR 271 7. The Ld.AR further argued stating that the loan amount obtained by the assessee was extended to his friend and the same was subsequently returned by his friend by depositing the same in his bank account and these transactions are genuine. The Ld. A…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B CO No. 09/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, Ward-49(3), Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B Assessee by : Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Ku…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…). 34. Heirs & ORs of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel v. CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 206 (Guj) : (2009) 222 CTR (Guj) 138. 35. R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Chunilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 602 (Pat), Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All) and Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)]. 36. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)]. 37. ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ (Pune-Trib)(TM) 300. 38. […

Shri Vibhuti Singh Deora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5-2, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 308/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Miss. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 131Section 69C

…of money from the assessee. Further, for the proposition that the averments made in the affidavit cannot be disregarded without any cogent basis, Id. AR of the assessee also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). 3 Vibhuti Singh Deora, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur In the statements both the tenants accepted the fact of being involved in agriculture activities on Bataidari basis, on the agriculture land owned by the assessee. The factual position has also been confirmed by the Sarpanch in his certificate. However, the tenants were unable to spec…

Late Vithaldas Khusaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Mali, L/H Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [Pan: Abopm 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, (In Short “The Cit (A)”) All Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 1998-99 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Navsari (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”). 2. Ground No.(I) & Ground No. (Ii) Regarding Reopening Of Assessment & Validity Of Assessment Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…hat is mentioned in the affidavit has to be accepted as laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Glass Line Equipment 253 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on-money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on- Late Vithal L/h Hasmukhbhai V. Mali v. DCIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 629/AHD/2017/A.Y. 98-99 Page 6 of 7 money. The Tribunal by its…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…quipment 253 Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 31 of 34 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on- money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on-money. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.11.2003 allowed appeals of the assessee. Department appeals were dismissed by Gujarat H…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…quipment 253 Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 31 of 34 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on- money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on-money. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.11.2003 allowed appeals of the assessee. Department appeals were dismissed by Gujarat H…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…quipment 253 Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 31 of 34 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on- money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on-money. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.11.2003 allowed appeals of the assessee. Department appeals were dismissed by Gujarat H…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…quipment 253 Ratilal K Mali v. ACIT- Navsari/ I.T.A.No. 1637, 2123, 2125 &, 2127/AHD/2014/A.Y. 94-95, 95-96, 96-97 & 97-98 Page 31 of 34 ITR 454 (Gujarat) the jurisdiction has followed the decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC). Further, such identical issue had arisen in the case of Ratan Corporation where the assessee had declared Rs. 1 crores as on- money. The Department did not make inquiry with shopkeepers who alleged to have paid on-money. The Tribunal by its order dated 12.11.2003 allowed appeals of the assessee. Department appeals were dismissed by Gujarat H…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…This is so because the rejection of affidavit filed by the Assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so [Mehta Parikh & Co. v/s. CIT 30 ITR 181, 187 (SC)]. 3. An action u/s. 132 was conducted at Mumbai Airport on 9.12.2004 on these carriers. During the course 54 Kgs of Gold Bullion was found and seized from the two persons carrying the said gold bullion on behalf the Appellant to his Branch Office at Coimbatore as per details given hereunder: Name of the Carrier Total Quantity found and s…

Income Tax Officer 15(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Celebrity Lifespace Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15)

For Appellant: SinghFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…statements and in substance two contradictory statements made by these persons are available. Then the A.O should rely on the retraction statement. 6.4 Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co., reported in 30 ITR 181, wherein it was held that once a statement given on oath is retracted, AO has to examine that person again and if that is not done, he cannot rely on original statement made by that person. 7. From the record, we also found that on page No. 10 onwards, Ld. CIT(A) has incorporated various documents filed by assessee in respect of each party from w…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3741/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5266/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5265/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…nd properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, or the finding was, in other words, perverse and the Court is entitled to interfere. [para 23] xxviii. On similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 held as under: “The finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented the concealed profits of the appellant is not supported by any evidence, and is, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. The accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is…