Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle

339 ITR 192High Court2011#2035 most cited

What is Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle authority for?

Additions made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of a retracted statement under section 132(4) cannot be sustained without corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of assets, at the time of the search.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT · section 132(4) · retracted statement · corroboration · search and seizure · addition based on confession · independent evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 132(4A)Section 153DSection 142A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)retracted statementsection 100bogus share capitalsection 153(c)(1)statement under section 132(4)section 131(1)section 269tsection 94section 114abatement of assessmentsection 158bc

Judgments citing Narayan N. Boos v. ACIT, Circle

Nadidwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1493/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…f employees were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of their statements the A.O observed that the assessee had inflated the expenses to reduce the taxable profits. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan N. Boos. Vs. ACIT, Circle (339 ITR 192) held that addition made by the A.O merely on the basis of retracted statement u/s 132(4) could not be sustained in the absence of any evidence material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (92 SCL 157…

Nadiadwala Grandson Entertainment Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 1492/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.1492 To 1497/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 To 2016-17) Nadiadwala Grandson Vs. Dcit, Cc-4(4), Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Air India 1701, 17Th Floor, Lotus Building, Nariman Point, Grandeur, Off Veera Desai Mumbai - 400021 Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Ita Nos.2221 To 2223, 2237 & 2238/Mum/2021 (A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Nadiadwala Grandson Income Tax, Central Circle- Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 4(4),Central Range-4 Nadiadwala Villa, Ocean Pr.Cit(C)-2,R.No. 1922, View, Jp Road, Versova, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (West), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400061 Mumbai - 400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccn0909J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mani Jain & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2022

For Appellant: Mani Jain &For Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 132(1)Section 68

…f employees were recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and on the basis of their statements the A.O observed that the assessee had inflated the expenses to reduce the taxable profits. The Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan N. Boos. Vs. ACIT, Circle (339 ITR 192) held that addition made by the A.O merely on the basis of retracted statement u/s 132(4) could not be sustained in the absence of any evidence material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (92 SCL 157…

DCIT C.C. 3(4) Central .RG, Mumbai vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2227/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit,Cc-3(4) Vs. Mr. Vijay Kumar Thakkar Room No. 1915, Air India D-1214, Hillside Building Building, Nariman Point, Raheja Vihar, Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 072 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacpt0654P Revenue .. Assessee

For Appellant: Harsh Bhuta &For Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 698Section 69B

…f assessee from the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 applied by the A.O without disproving the specific supporting evidences existed in the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan N. Boos. Vs. ACIT, Circle (339 ITR 192) held that addition made by the A.O merely on the basis of retracted statement u/s 132(4) could not be sustained in the absence of any evidence material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (92 SCL 157…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 256/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, NR Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAVPD 6554 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Ag…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of admission. Therefore, since Tribunal after taking into consideration attending circumstance accepted assessee's declaration about undisclosed income used in investment, finding of fact could not be said to be vitiated. M. Narayanan & Bros. Vs. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 192 (Mad.) (HC) Assessee offered Rs.3 lakhs as unaccounted income on the first day of search at his premises and another sum of Rs.4 lakhs on the second day of search. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee retracted the statement made on second day offering the additional income of Rs.4 lakhs. AO rejected the said plea and madeas…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of admission. Therefore, since Tribunal after taking into consideration attending circumstance accepted assessee's declaration about undisclosed income used in investment, finding of fact could not be said to be vitiated. M. Narayanan & Bros. Vs. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 192 (Mad.) (HC) Assessee offered Rs.3 lakhs as unaccounted income on the first day of search at his premises and another sum of Rs.4 lakhs on the second day of search. However, in the course of assessment proceedings, assessee retracted the statement made on second day offering the additional income of Rs.4 lakhs. AO rejected the said plea and madeas…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 1 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A Nos.99 to 101/Ind/2016 & ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2012-13 DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Appellant V/s Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Respondent CO No.25/Ind/2017 Arising out of ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Appellant V/s DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Re…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 1 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A Nos.99 to 101/Ind/2016 & ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2012-13 DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Appellant V/s Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Respondent CO No.25/Ind/2017 Arising out of ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Appellant V/s DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Re…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…erala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee…

ACIT, Cen. Cir-VI, Kolkata vs. Smt. Usha Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…as not justified in making addition of Rs. 6 lakhs.” (iv) Similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Courts in the following cases:- CIT vs Chandrakumar Jethmal Kochar reported in (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Gujarat) M.Narayanan & Bros vs ACIT reported in (2011) 339 ITR 192 (Mad) 7 ITA No.142/K/2014 & CO No.16/K/2016 Usha Agarwal. AY 2010-11 CIT vs S Khader Khan Sons reported in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) which was later approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court Bachittar Singh vs CIT reported in (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P&H) In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we h…