Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.

387 ITR 529High Court2016#83 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd. authority for?

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

670

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,659 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions · Section 153A · search assessment · incriminating material · completed assessment · no addition without evidence · Section 132 · Section 153C

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 2922016 SCC OnLine GUJ 9976

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132ASection 151

Issues it is cited on

section 153atoundisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158basection 149(1)(c)section 153b(1)(a)section 113section 4(2)abatement of assessmentsection 201(3)section 153c proceedingssection 153b(1)block period

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.

M/S. Venus Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 836/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

M/S. Venus Infrabuild, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 834/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

DCIT, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Deepak Kumar Vaswani, Ahmedabad

ITA 807/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad

ITA 806/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad

ITA 805/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

Shri Deepak Budharmal Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 461/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

Shri Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 457/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

Shri Ashok Sunderdas Vaswani, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 456/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed

…n under section 153C, then the meaning of words “belongs” or “pertains to” would not change the colour. 13. In rebuttal, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Saumya Construction P.Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj) has held that addition under section 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is not in line of the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, and ITAT is bound to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court only. As far as other submissio…

Mr. Yunus Zia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 126/BANG/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 154

…T vs. Lancy Constructions, 295 CTR 454. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawala, 380 ITR 573, of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction (P) Ltd., 387 ITR 529, of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia, 395 ITR 526 against which SLP was filed by the revenue before Hon’ble Apex court which is dismissed as per judgment reported in 257 Taxman 441 (SC) and of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 3…

ITO 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. I.A. & I.C Pvt .Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 5316/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 132(4)Section 153C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 5316/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2010-11) I.T.A. No. 6205/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) ITO-2(2)(1) M/s. I.A. & I.C. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Room No. 549 16, Gundecha Chamber Aayakar Bhavan Nagindas, Master Road M.K. Road Fort, Mumbai-400 023. Mumbai-400020. PAN : AAACI2620K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sunil Talati Department by Shri V. Sreekar Date of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the Revenue against th…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…dition can be made in the assessment made U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Similar view was taken by the numerous High Courts namely Pr.CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) ; ii) Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); iii) Pr. CIT v. Devangi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 610/394 ITR 184 (Guj.) iv) Pr. CIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 740 of 2016, dated 10-10-2016] and CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT vs. Murali Agro Products, 49 taxmann.com 17…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…dition can be made in the assessment made U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Similar view was taken by the numerous High Courts namely Pr.CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) ; ii) Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); iii) Pr. CIT v. Devangi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 610/394 ITR 184 (Guj.) iv) Pr. CIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 740 of 2016, dated 10-10-2016] and CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT vs. Murali Agro Products, 49 taxmann.com 17…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1468/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…dition can be made in the assessment made U/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Similar view was taken by the numerous High Courts namely Pr.CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468/257 Taxman 441 (SC) ; ii) Pr. CIT v. Saumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj); iii) Pr. CIT v. Devangi [2017] 88 taxmann.com 610/394 ITR 184 (Guj.) iv) Pr. CIT v. Jay Infrastructure and Properties (P.) Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 740 of 2016, dated 10-10-2016] and CIT v. Kabul Chawla [2015] 61 taxmann.com 412/234 Taxman 300/[2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), CIT vs. Murali Agro Products, 49 taxmann.com 17…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

M/S Best Bakery & Ice Cream Parlour, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

M/S. Matha Enterprises, Angamally vs. ACIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…

DCIT, Ernakulam vs. Matha Enterprises, Angamally

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

…om.) (8) Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82) (Del.) (9) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Coprporation (Nhavasheva) Ltd. (374 ITR 645) (Bom.) (10) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573) (Del.) (11) Pr. CIT vs. Soumya Construction P. Ltd. (387 ITR 529) (Guj.) (12) Pr. CIT vs. DipakJashvantalPanchal (397 ITR 153) (Guj.) (13) Asst. CIT vs. SRJ Peety Steels (P) Ltd. 53 DTR (AT) 347 (Pune) and 137 TTJ (Pune) 627 18.5 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Findings: MATHA ENTERPRISES ITA No.302/Coch/2010 : Assessee’s Appeal: AY 2001-02 ITA No.269/Coch/2010: :Revenue’s Appeal: A…