PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills. Limited

388 ITR 237High Court#17811 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2023.

Judgments citing PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills. Limited

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Mumbai vs. Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…icer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions- (a) CIT v. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj)] (b) CIT v. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 (Raj)] (c)PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] (d) CIT vJacksons House [198 Taxman 385 (Del)] (e) CIT v. Jananamandal Ltd. [214 Taxman 49 (All)] (f) CIT v. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 10.6. The appellants further, submit that merely because an addition is made in the assessment order, it does not mean that the books of account are not reliable. An addition to total income…

Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…icer, the same cannot be summarily rejected. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions- (a) CIT v. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj)] (b) CIT v. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 (Raj)] (c)PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] (d) CIT vJacksons House [198 Taxman 385 (Del)] (e) CIT v. Jananamandal Ltd. [214 Taxman 49 (All)] (f) CIT v. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 10.6. The appellants further, submit that merely because an addition is made in the assessment order, it does not mean that the books of account are not reliable. An addition to total income…

DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Roop Square Private Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 249/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

…e has been maintaining stock register of the jewellery items and, therefore, the inferences drawn by the AO are mere surmises and conjectures lacking any sound basis. 7.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills. Limited, 388 ITR 237 (Guj.) has categorically held that it is a settled position of law that the books of account cannot rejected on insignificant grounds. The AO is required to point out specific defects whereby the accounts of the assessee cannot be treated as correct or complete giving rise to distorted figure of gross profit. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court went…

M/S Roop Square Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT-CC-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed and the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 198/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68

…e has been maintaining stock register of the jewellery items and, therefore, the inferences drawn by the AO are mere surmises and conjectures lacking any sound basis. 7.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of PCIT Vs. Garden Silk Mills. Limited, 388 ITR 237 (Guj.) has categorically held that it is a settled position of law that the books of account cannot rejected on insignificant grounds. The AO is required to point out specific defects whereby the accounts of the assessee cannot be treated as correct or complete giving rise to distorted figure of gross profit. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court went…

Netrandnda Pradhan, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.,Goutam, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154

…and in view of the past accepted results, the net profit at 6% should be applied to determine the income of the impugned assessment year. Ld A.R. also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Garden Silk Mills Ltd., 388 ITR 237 (Guj) and also the decision of Cuttack Bench in the case of DCIT vs M/s. Maa Baghei Construction Pvt Ltd., in TIA No.480/CTK/2014 order dated 29.6.2017 to support his case. 7. Replying to above, ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. In the instant case, th…