Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT

57 ITR 521Supreme Court of India1965#816 most cited

What is Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Income tax is levied on real income, which represents profits determined by ordinary commercial principles after permissible deductions, considering the probability of realization. This principle distinguishes real profits from statutory profits specified for other purposes under the Income-tax Act.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 57 ITR 521 · real income theory · commercial principles · determination of income · permissible deductions · probability of realization · business income · mercantile system of accounting · statutory profits distinction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 11Section 119
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(iv)explanation to section 37surrender of incomeright to receiveprincipal officersection 192section 30section 40(a)(i)mercantile system of accountingrejection of books of accountbeneficial ownerfees for technical services

Judgments citing Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Wipro Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/20040/2019HC Karnataka25 Aug 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit Writ Petition No.20040/2019 (T-It) Between:

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 254Section 92C

…have relevance in considering the Orders Giving Effect in the light of Parliamentary amendments to the 1961 Act: • It is a fundamental principle that income tax is payable on real income, vide Apex Court decision in Poona Electric Co. Vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521. • This real income can be brought to tax through assessment contemplated under the Act. • The basic principle is that ordinarily assessments cannot be done piecemeal. • There are a few exceptions to the rule of “no piecemeal assessment’ as in the case where income has escaped assessment where re- assessment powers do avail, as discus…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. S C Kothari (1971)(82 ITR…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. S C Kothari (1971)(82 ITR…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…ddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the decision rendered in the case of CIT vs. S C Kothari (1971)(82 ITR…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ns’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on Badaridas Daga v. ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 70 CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 57 ITR 521, Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 31. Therefore, it is submitted that, in the instant case, the amount of compensation and compulsory contribution is to be deducted as a business loss while computing profits and gains under Section 28 of the IT Act. The compensation and compulsory contribution are not in the nature of expenditure but in the n…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…ns’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on Badaridas Daga v. ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 70 CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 57 ITR 521, Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 31. Therefore, it is submitted that, in the instant case, the amount of compensation and compulsory contribution is to be deducted as a business loss while computing profits and gains under Section 28 of the IT Act. The compensation and compulsory contribution are not in the nature of expenditure but in the n…

M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1761/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…r managers as the contractual recompense for their service during the year, it is plain that the real net profit is only £9,000." The above principle was followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V.s CIT (57 ITR 521) and this principle was re-iterated again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (90 ITR 307). Thus, the principle laid down in all the above cases is that though an amount of expenditure is ascertained with reference to profits, it does not lose the character of expenditure. Therefore, the reasoning…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 5, Bangalore vs. M/S. the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 1327/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…r managers as the contractual recompense for their service during the year, it is plain that the real net profit is only £9,000." The above principle was followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V.s CIT (57 ITR 521) and this principle was re-iterated again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (90 ITR 307). Thus, the principle laid down in all the above cases is that though an amount of expenditure is ascertained with reference to profits, it does not lose the character of expenditure. Therefore, the reasoning…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2160/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…r managers as the contractual recompense for their service during the year, it is plain that the real net profit is only £9,000." The above principle was followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V.s CIT (57 ITR 521) and this principle was re-iterated again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (90 ITR 307). Thus, the principle laid down in all the above cases is that though an amount of expenditure is ascertained with reference to profits, it does not lose the character of expenditure. Therefore, the reasoning…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S the Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd, Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2150/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…r managers as the contractual recompense for their service during the year, it is plain that the real net profit is only £9,000." The above principle was followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V.s CIT (57 ITR 521) and this principle was re-iterated again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (90 ITR 307). Thus, the principle laid down in all the above cases is that though an amount of expenditure is ascertained with reference to profits, it does not lose the character of expenditure. Therefore, the reasoning…

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, Ground No.3 raised by revenue for assessment years 2011-12 stands dismissed

ITA 2082/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT)For Respondent: Shri. S. Ramasubramanyan, CA
Section 147

…r managers as the contractual recompense for their service during the year, it is plain that the real net profit is only £9,000." The above principle was followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. V.s CIT (57 ITR 521) and this principle was re-iterated again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (90 ITR 307). Thus, the principle laid down in all the above cases is that though an amount of expenditure is ascertained with reference to profits, it does not lose the character of expenditure. Therefore, the reasoning…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…see, and therefore cannot be taxed. B.5.1. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on following decisions: Page 53 of 138 A.Y:2013-14 i. CIT vs Sitaldas Tirathdas reported in (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) ii. Poona Electric supply Co. Ltd. vs CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521 (SC). iii. Moti Lal Chhadami Lal Jain vs CIT (1991) 190 ITR 1 (SC). iv. CIT vs Modipon Ltd., (2018) 400 ITR 1 (SC). v. CIT vs TJayavhandran (2018) 406 ITR 1(SC). vi. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., SLP (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 17347/2019. vii. Pr.CIT vs Gyan Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITA 940/2016(DEL) dated 17/05/2018. viii. CIT vs United Breweries…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…the Revenue. It cannot disallow a loss without any sound, tenable reason i.e., in law; it being trite law that tax can only be charged on real, and not notional, income, subject of course to the provisions of law (Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 521 (SC)). It may appear that we, having been called upon to state if the impugned loss could be disallowed to any extent, have, in so deciding, travelled outside our mandate. It is not so; examining the assessee’s alternate claim for allowance of the expenditure on watchman salary as a business expense, also emphasized before us, led us to state that…

Red Fort Shahjahan Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-21(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 742/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Ys 2016-17]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R

…by the Bombay High Court in H.M. Kashiparekh and Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1960] 39 ITR 706, Morvi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1971] 82 ITR 835 as well as Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1965] 57 ITR 521. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court held as follows:- "The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner. If the matter is conside…

DCIT, Cirde-25(1), New Delhi vs. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd

The appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas those of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/186/2020HC Delhi11 Mar 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

For Respondent: Rs.78,91,50,000 and (b) disallowance under
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 80

…ition relating to recognition of the revenue is on account of efficiency gain. The learned Tribunal after considering the facts of the case have applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Poona Electric Supply Company Limited vs. CIT (1965) 57 ITR 521, wherein the Apex Court has deliberated upon the concept of commercial profits viz-a-viz clear profits. On the basis of this principle, the Court has held that the amount transferable for the benefit of the consumers do not form part of the assesee’s real profit and for the purpose of calculating the taxable income, such amount has to be deduc…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2554/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA Nos.2552, 2553 & 2554/Kol/2017 (Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Kolkata. Uniworth Limited Rawdon Chambers, 11A, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACW2805Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri N.M. Bhansali, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini,…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2553/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA Nos.2552, 2553 & 2554/Kol/2017 (Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Kolkata. Uniworth Limited Rawdon Chambers, 11A, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACW2805Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri N.M. Bhansali, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini,…

Uniworth Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2552/KOL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.M. Bhansali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA Nos.2552, 2553 & 2554/Kol/2017 (Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07) Vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Kolkata. Uniworth Limited Rawdon Chambers, 11A, Sarojini Naidu Sarani, Kolkata – 700017. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACW2805Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : Shri N.M. Bhansali, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 23/10/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini,…

Vedanta Ltd (Earlier Known As Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1454/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishivedanta Ltd. Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Sterlite Circle-26(1), Industries (India) Ltd,) New Delhi Core-6, 3Rd Floor, Scope Complex, 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaccs7101B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 234BSection 263Section 271

…bility may be quantified at a later date. ii) Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: CIT vs. Burhal Sugar Mills Co. Limited, (82 ITR 784) (All.) CIT vs. Singari Bai [1945] 13 ITR 224 (All.) Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. vs. C.I.T. 57 ITR 521 (SC) Metal Box Co. of India vs. Their workman 73 ITR 53 (SC) Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC) CIT vs. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd. (196 CTR 369) [Delhi] CIT Tamil Nadu vs. Sitalakshmi Mills Ltd. (141 ITR 415) [Mad] ITAT Chennai & Commissioner Appeals has decided this issue favorable in AY 2004- 05 3.3.23 Similar issue…

Shri Anil Kothari (HUF), Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 6, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2645/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amrjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of 2. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. "था. ले. सं./Pan No.: Aacha 4940 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: 2. Ground No.1 as amended by the Revenue states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in de
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…DCIT, Circle-6, Surat Vs. Anil J Kothari(Vice Versa)/I.T.A.No.2048/Ahd/10 & 2645/Ahd/13 for A.Y. 2007-08 1 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMRJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/s. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor of 2. Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Arpit Exports, G-…