Pawankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO

165 ITD 260Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#12250 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Judgments citing Pawankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 463/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneo…

DCIT- Circle- 1, Thane vs. Darshan Enterprises, Thane

In the result, the both appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 462/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.462 /Mum/2019 & I.T.A.No.463/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax M/S Darshan Enterprises Circle-1,6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista, Vs. B Wing Wagle Industrial Estate Ghodbunder Road, Thane- 400604 Opp. Suraj Water Park, Thane(West) 400615 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfd8612N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shashi Tulsian Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Nashik Dated 5-11-2018 For Ay 2010-11. [One I.E. Ita 462 Is Against The Quantum Deleted By Ld.Cit(A) & Ita 463 Is Against The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter “The Act”) Deleted By Ld.Cit(A)]. 2. First Of All We Will Take Up The Quantum Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Wherein The Revenue Challenges The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) To Have Deleted The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) Under Section 68 Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Partnership Firm Had Filed Return Of Income On 22.09.2010 Declaring Income Of Rs. Rs. 1,47,73,191/-. Later The Case For The Relevant Assessment Year Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Noted That

For Appellant: Shri Shashi TulsianFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ove the nature and source of credit entries, and so addition was warranted. And the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting it. The Ld. DR also referred to and relied on the following decisions : CIT Vs Maithan International 375 ITR 123 (Cal) and Pavankumar Sanghvi V ITO 165 ITD 260(Ahmd –Trib) apart from relying on the decisions referred to in the assessment order viz Bharti Pvt Ltd Vs CIT (1978) 111 ITR 951(Cal) and Jamnaprasad Kanhayalal Vs CIT 130 ITR 244 (SC). 12. The Ld DR filed an affidavit dated 19.10.2022 from Pr.CIT pointing out that Para 7 and Para 8 of the remand report dated 10.2.2017 of the AO has been erroneo…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(1), P. Ltd., Room No.357, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, 3rd Flr, Vs. Station Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 078 Marine Lines, PAN: AABCL 9224B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.7276 & 7277/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(2), P. Ltd., R.No.15B, Gr. Flr, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,…

DCIT Central Circle-7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Wellknown Polysters Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(1), P. Ltd., Room No.357, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, 3rd Flr, Vs. Station Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 078 Marine Lines, PAN: AABCL 9224B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.7276 & 7277/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(2), P. Ltd., R.No.15B, Gr. Flr, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,…

ITO 15 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Limbo Engineering P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(1), P. Ltd., Room No.357, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, 3rd Flr, Vs. Station Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Bhandup (W), M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 078 Marine Lines, PAN: AABCL 9224B Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.7276 & 7277/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Income Tax Officer- M/s. Limbo Engineering 15(2)(2), P. Ltd., R.No.15B, Gr. Flr, B-60/B, Stations Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

…- TIOL-1434-ITAT-MUM 13.Decision of Hon. Kolkata ITAT in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Axisline Investment Consultant Pvt Ltd dated 01.06,2019, 2Q19-TIOL-1396-ITAT- KOL 14. Decision of Hon. Ahmedabad ITAT in the case of Pavankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO, 59 ITR (T) 389 /165 ITD 260\198-201 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below, along with case laws cited by both the parties. The Ld. AO has made additions towards unsecured loans taken from certain companies/associates of Praveen Kumar Jain, on the ground that those companies are paper entr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tions, therefore, the same was liable to be treated as unexplained cash credits under Sec.68 of the Act, the ld. D.R relied on the order of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench “SMC” in the case of Pavankumar Sanghavi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Vadodara (2017) 165 ITD 260 (Ahd). It was submitted by the ld. D.R, that as the CIT(A) had erred in dislodging the well reasoned order of the A.O, therefore, his order was liable to be vacated and that of the A.O be restored. 6. Per contra, the ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee took us through the facts of the case. It was submitted by the ld.…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Infotech Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1371/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 68

…share capital. If that is what has happened, the genuineness of the transaction is to be examined with due care. 9. As we deal with this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Pavankumar M. Sanghvi vs. ITO (165 ITD 260), which has been confirmed by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (404 ITR 601) against which SLP is dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court (97 taxmann.com 398), as follows:- “7. In my considered view, so far as the legal foundation of the impugned additions is concerned, it consists of assessee's inability to satisfy the Assessing Officer about all the thre…

Pawankumar M Sanghvi v. ITO (165 ITD 260) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax