Pr. CIT v. Nageshwar Enterprises

421 ITR 388High Court#20834 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,388 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 108escapement of incomeundisclosed incomesection 10reassessment proceedingssection 143(1)section 148section 147companypersonsection 143(3)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Nageshwar Enterprises

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. M/S Hallmark Suppliers Pvt.Ltd., Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 46/RAN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2014-15 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd., M/S. Hallmark Suppliers Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Flat No.302, 108 Tax, Tax, Central Central Circle-1, Circle Floor, Flat No.302, 108-5, Jamshedpur Jamshedpur Office Office Road, Road, Rabindra Rabindra Sarani, Sarani, Liluah, Liluah, Bistupur, Jamshedpur Bistupur, Jamshedpur Howarah-711204 711204 Pan/Gir No.Aacch 1833 R (Appellant) (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Ld Cit Dr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR

…ission that in the course of appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee has challenged the said addition of Rs.6 crores and ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs Nageshwar Enterprises, 421 ITR 388 (Guj) as also the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Benches in the case of Rohitaswa Das vs DCIT order dated 28.8.2019. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) held that the addition cannot be made on the basis of a statement of submission of the director of the assessee company until and unless there is any corroborative evidence for the same. It was t…

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV (3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 642/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

…ase and evidences on record and merely followed the observations of the ED 6) The appellant-company wishes to draw the kind attention of the Hon'ble Members to the recent judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Nageshwar Enterprises 421 ITR 388 (Guj) (2020) which is quoted below: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no addition could be made on the basis of the action of the third party, i.e., the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Department could not start with the confessional statement of the assessee. The confessional statement had to be…

Mohamad Idris Bros Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Company Circle - IV(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 641/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

…ase and evidences on record and merely followed the observations of the ED 6) The appellant-company wishes to draw the kind attention of the Hon'ble Members to the recent judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Nageshwar Enterprises 421 ITR 388 (Guj) (2020) which is quoted below: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no addition could be made on the basis of the action of the third party, i.e., the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Department could not start with the confessional statement of the assessee. The confessional statement had to be…

Mohamad Idris Bros P.Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT- Company Circle-4(3), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 640/CHNY/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Dr. M. Razzack (FCA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 108Section 143(3)

…ase and evidences on record and merely followed the observations of the ED 6) The appellant-company wishes to draw the kind attention of the Hon'ble Members to the recent judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Nageshwar Enterprises 421 ITR 388 (Guj) (2020) which is quoted below: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Tribunal was correct in holding that no addition could be made on the basis of the action of the third party, i.e., the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The Department could not start with the confessional statement of the assessee. The confessional statement had to be…

Pr. CIT v. Nageshwar Enterprises (421 ITR 388) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax