Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd.

424 ITR 338High Court2020#5284 most cited

What is Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd. authority for?

The High Court may not enhance the quantum of purchases beyond that of the Assessing Officer, especially when the purchases corresponded to sales reflected in the assessee's returns and books of account.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13 · Mumbai v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd. · 424 ITR 338 · purchases · enhancement · assessment order · sales tax proceedings · books of account

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133ASection 1961Section 41(1)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)sundry creditorssatisfaction notelack of enquirysection 69c

Judgments citing Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd.

Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2187/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit Circle-1 Meerut Vs Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. 214-A Ganj Bazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut Aaacm9399K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Vs Acit Circle-1 Ltd. Meerut 214-A Ganjbazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut Aaacm9399K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(2)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Circle-1 Meerut Vs Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. 214-A Ganj Bazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut AAACM9399K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Vs ACIT Circle-1 Ltd. Meerut 214-A GanjBazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut AAACM9399K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 14/1/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23/1/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal fi…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd., Meerut

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3895/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumaracit Circle-1 Meerut Vs Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. 214-A Ganj Bazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut Aaacm9399K (Appellant) (Respondent) & Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Vs Acit Circle-1 Ltd. Meerut 214-A Ganjbazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut Aaacm9399K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(2)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT Circle-1 Meerut Vs Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. 214-A Ganj Bazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut AAACM9399K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) & Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P) Vs ACIT Circle-1 Ltd. Meerut 214-A GanjBazar Sadar Meerut Cantt Meerut AAACM9399K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Sanjiv Sapra, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 14/1/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 23/1/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal fi…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…t only profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not entire amount where purchasers were not traceable; relying on PCIT vs Jakharia Fabric (P) Ltd.(2020) 42( ITR 323 (Bom-HC) dated 10.02.2020, PCIT vs Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd (2020) 424 ITR 338 (Bom-HC) dated 10.02.2020 and CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj- HC) dated 23.10.2012. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that addition was made by the Assessing Officer merely based on statement recorded at the time of survey u/s ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 155 of 158 133A of the Act and alleged spot enquiry by…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…t only profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not entire amount where purchasers were not traceable; relying on PCIT vs Jakharia Fabric (P) Ltd.(2020) 42( ITR 323 (Bom-HC) dated 10.02.2020, PCIT vs Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd (2020) 424 ITR 338 (Bom-HC) dated 10.02.2020 and CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj- HC) dated 23.10.2012. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that addition was made by the Assessing Officer merely based on statement recorded at the time of survey u/s ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 155 of 158 133A of the Act and alleged spot enquiry by…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…stances at hand are exactly in pari materia with those in “Raj Lakshmi B Vs PCIT” (supra), wherein the Tribunal had quashed the revisional order, following “Rajal Enterprises” (supra). 10.4 Similar is the position in “PCIT Vs Rishabh Development Techno”, 424 ITR 338 (Bom) and “Subhash Chander Gupta Vs ITO”, order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 362/CHD/2022. 11. Further, the ld. PCIT has observed that the assessee had made cash purchases from the open market, as the sales had been confirmed, but the AO had failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance had…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…stances at hand are exactly in pari materia with those in “Raj Lakshmi B Vs PCIT” (supra), wherein the Tribunal had quashed the revisional order, following “Rajal Enterprises” (supra). 10.4 Similar is the position in “PCIT Vs Rishabh Development Techno”, 424 ITR 338 (Bom) and “Subhash Chander Gupta Vs ITO”, order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 362/CHD/2022. 11. Further, the ld. PCIT has observed that the assessee had made cash purchases from the open market, as the sales had been confirmed, but the AO had failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance had…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…stances at hand are exactly in pari materia with those in “Raj Lakshmi B Vs PCIT” (supra), wherein the Tribunal had quashed the revisional order, following “Rajal Enterprises” (supra). 10.4 Similar is the position in “PCIT Vs Rishabh Development Techno”, 424 ITR 338 (Bom) and “Subhash Chander Gupta Vs ITO”, order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 362/CHD/2022. 11. Further, the ld. PCIT has observed that the assessee had made cash purchases from the open market, as the sales had been confirmed, but the AO had failed to acknowledge this fact and no disallowance had…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7900/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7899/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7898/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7897/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7896/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6897/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6896/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6894/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

Kumar Brothers Co., New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6893/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &For Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 153C

…as to be made to the extent of purchases found to be fictitious. However, this decision of Allahabad High Court was considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai Versus Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., [2020] 424 ITR 338 (Bom), dated 10.02.2020, wherein, it has been held as under: “19. On thorough consideration of the matter, we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. The lower appellate authorities had enhanced the quantum of purchases much beyond that of the Assessing Officer i.e., from Rs.24,18,06,385.00 ITA Nos. 6893 to 6897/D…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…ab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Gujarat), Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Gujarat), decision of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Ris Pr. CIT v. Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd. 424 ITR 338 (Bom) Technocable Ltd. 424 ITR 338 (Bom) and decision of in the case and decision of in the case of Pr. CIT v. Jakharia Fabric (P.) Ltd. 429 ITR 332 (Bom), Pr. CIT v. Jakharia Fabric (P.) Ltd. 429 ITR 332 (Bom), Pr. CIT v. Jakharia Fabric (P.) Ltd. 429 ITR 332 (Bom), Following the above decision ollowing the above decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) restri…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rishabdev Tachnocable Ltd. Tachnocable Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 338 (Bom) (2020) 424 ITR 338 (Bom). Assessing Officer also also sought to rely on statement of third parties sought to rely on statement of third parties but no opportunity to cross examine them was given to the assessee but no opportunity to cross examine them was given to the assessee but no opportunity to cross examine them was given to the assess…

Income Tax-32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Proto Chemicals Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1130/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Mahita NairFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

…gus purchases, which decision of the Tribunal is also supported by the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. in ITA Nos. 1004 and others of 2016 dated 11.02.2019 and PCIT vs. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd., 424 ITR 338 (Bom.). Accordingly, order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2022. (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date : 29.06.2022 *SSL* Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT(A) concerned 4) The CIT concerned 5) The D.R, “D” Bench, Mumbai…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-13, Mumbai v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd. (424 ITR 338) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax