Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain

262 ITR 295High Court2003#2859 most cited

What is Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain authority for?

A strong suspicion, however compelling, cannot replace the need for concrete evidence or proof in income tax proceedings. Assessments based on mere presumptions, without factual support, are not justified.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Ram Narain · presumption cannot substitute evidence · suspicion cannot replace proof · addition not justified · ITAT decision based on presumption · search assessment · Nirmal search · 118 Fashions · 121 Goel · 262 ITR 295 · 153A · 132 · 147

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

paper companysection 153(a)penny stocksection 10(38)section 249section 153dsearch assessmentdelay in filing appealsection 132asection 253long term capital gainsection 133

Judgments citing Para 5 119- CIT v. Ram Narain

Shri Ramesh Chandra Parashar, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Dabra vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Lalta Prasad Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Khemraj Singh Chauhan, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…enable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs. Emerald Officer and CIT(A) were based on & 6 126 Commercial Ltd. & presumption and not warranted Anr. by the facts of the case 17 332 ITR…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1765/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…mmercial Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 539 (Cal)  CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assesse…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1764/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…mmercial Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 539 (Cal)  CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assesse…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1573/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…mmercial Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 539 (Cal)  CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assesse…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1572/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…mmercial Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 539 (Cal)  CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assesse…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…de to the following decisions:- (1) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (1959) 37ITR 288 (SC); (2) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co (2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.) (3) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT (2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.) [Department's appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and also by SC in 268 ITR 215 (St); (4) ITO vs Shreedham Construction P Ltd in ITA No. 3754- 3756/Mum/2017 Dt: 14.11.2017 (PB 41 -60) 4.1.8 It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has taken objection to the premium of Rs.900 per share on the face value of Rs.100 per share charged by the assessee company considering the lack of proven track r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…de to the following decisions:- (1) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (1959) 37ITR 288 (SC); (2) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co (2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.) (3) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT (2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.) [Department's appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and also by SC in 268 ITR 215 (St); (4) ITO vs Shreedham Construction P Ltd in ITA No. 3754- 3756/Mum/2017 Dt: 14.11.2017 (PB 41 -60) 4.1.8 It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has taken objection to the premium of Rs.900 per share on the face value of Rs.100 per share charged by the assessee company considering the lack of proven track r…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…de to the following decisions:- (1) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (1959) 37ITR 288 (SC); (2) CIT v. Paras Cotton Co (2007) 288 ITR 211 (Raj.) (3) Faqir Chand Chaman Lai v. ACIT (2004) 1 SOT 914 (Asr.) [Department's appeal dismissed by P&H High Court in 262 ITR 295 and also by SC in 268 ITR 215 (St); (4) ITO vs Shreedham Construction P Ltd in ITA No. 3754- 3756/Mum/2017 Dt: 14.11.2017 (PB 41 -60) 4.1.8 It was further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has taken objection to the premium of Rs.900 per share on the face value of Rs.100 per share charged by the assessee company considering the lack of proven track r…

K.S.Ravikumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1509/CHNY/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, v. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle II, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. PAN : AJHPR 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…

K.S.Ravikumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1508/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, v. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle II, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. PAN : AJHPR 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…

K.S.Ravikumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1507/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, v. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle II, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. PAN : AJHPR 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…

K.S.Ravikumar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, V. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle Ii, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. Pan : Ajhpr 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Ramasamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, JCIT
Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1505, 1506, 1507, 1508 & 1509/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 Shri K.S. Ravikumar, The Assistant Commissioner of No.26/3, Sasti Illam, v. Income Tax, Vivekananda Nagar, Singanallur, Central Circle II, Coimbatore – 641 005. Trichy. PAN : AJHPR 3493 A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर स…