Ms Shanta Sales Corporation, Jaipur v. ITO, Jaipur

237 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1999#20019 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2020.

Judgments citing Ms Shanta Sales Corporation, Jaipur v. ITO, Jaipur

Shanta Salses Corporation, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (FCA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, without seeking an expert report on the same. It has been held by Supreme Court in the Ms Shanta Sales Corporation, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in [1999] 237 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it has been held that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make observations on technical matters, for which there is no material on record. Thus, the action of Ld. AO deserves to be held bad in law. 1.2 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the application of provisions of section 145(3) of the Act merely by allegin…

Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed assessee is allowed

ITA 3059/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Cargill Global Trading India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 111, Rectangle-I, Circle-5(2), Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccc0446P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay I Bara, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .11.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25Th February, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-44, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT, DR

Section 92C

…s are available on record remand is unwarranted and opposed to law. A second innings cannot be allowed to the authorities to improve their case. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Tribunal in a Third Member case in ACIT vs. Kumar Ice, 237 ITR 1, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Babhubhai 8 Damania, (2001) 254 ITR 541, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam Reddy vs. Pratap Steels (2002) 2 SCC 686 and in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. Referring to the decision…

M/S. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1431/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Adidas India Marketing Vs. Income Tax Officer, (P.) Ltd., Ward-1(3), New Delhi 5Th Floor, Unitech Commercial Tower-Ii, Sector- 45, Block-B, Greenwoods City, Gurgaon Pan : Aaaca5313P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv; Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca; & Mr. Ramit Katyal, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay I. Bara, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92Section 92BSection 92C

…y thereon as per laws of Germany and India. As pointed above, the e-mail was written by officers of Adidas AG, who may be expert in insurance laws but not expert in taxation laws, much less Indian tax laws. The Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate: 237 ITR 1 held that opinion of a person who is an expert on the subject can alone be relied on. Therefore, the 'understanding' of the executives of Adidas Risk GMBH that "the entire claim excluding the tax liability 33 Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. needs to be reflected in Adidas India P&L” is merely an understanding or opinion of persons who are not expe…

DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hardcastle & Waud Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 25O(4)

…013)  Arjun Malhotra Vs. CIT ( 403 ITR 354)  Barjinder Singh Bhatti Vs. ITO (ITA No. 1101/Chd/2014)  Pyare Mohan Mathur HUF Vs. ITO (ITA No. 471/Agra/2009)  Adarsh Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 66/Lkw/2014)  Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT (237 ITR 1)  Jansampark Advertising and Marketing P. Ltd. (375 ITR 373) 12. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that learned Departmental Representative has pointed out that the valuation has not been obtained from a registered valuer. In this view of the matter, entire premise of learned CIT(A) that valuation has been done by th…