Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT

301 ITR 134High Court2008#1057 most cited

What is Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT authority for?

No addition to income can be made based solely on documents found from a third party without examining that third party and establishing a clear link between the documents' contents and the assessee.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT · 301 ITR 134 · third party documents · addition to income · examination of third party · linking evidence · search assessment · Section 153A · Section 68 · Section 69 · Section 69A · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 132(4A)Section 69Section 144Section 142(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharessection 44afjewellery found during searchonus of proofsection 269tsection 269ssection 271esection 150section 158bbunexplained jewellerysection 132(4a)section 269ss

Judgments citing Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT

Shri Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Ramesh Chandra Parashar, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Dabra vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Lalta Prasad Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Khemraj Singh Chauhan, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…giving rise to income not disclosed in the books by the assessee the department’s presumption cannot 32 Mukesh Sharma IT(SS) No.88/Ind/2013 C.O.No.76/Ind/2014, ITA No.189/Ind/2013, ITA No.702 to 711/Ind/2016 & ITA No.542/Ind/2017 be tenable in law 11 (2008) 301 ITR 134 That seized document must be 15 & 79-83 (MP) Prakash speaking document no addition 16 Chand Nahta v. CIT permissible on the basis of dumb papers 12 (2007) 295 ITR That seized document must be Para 84- 352(Jabalpur speaking document no addition 29 110 I.T.A.T.) ACIT v. permissible on the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Si…

Shri Girish Kumar Tayal, Indore vs. The DCIT 5(1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 397/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Girishkumar Tayal Dcit-5(1) Prop. M/S Pradeep Cotex बनाम/ Industries , 4, Maa Durga Indore Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aatpt3581G Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, Advs Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2019

Section 143(3)

…farmers were duly submitted and the complete failure of the AO to summon the farmers an, verify the facts from them is contrary to the established judicial principles and in particular the jurisdictional High Court decision in Prakash Chand Nahata CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 MP and thus the entire assessment is vitiated in law and deserves to be quashed. 5.Failure of the AO and CIT(A) to appreciate the correct scope an ambit of Krishi Upaj mandi Adhiniyam. : The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that reliance placed by the AO on the provision of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam is misplaced because the said At' does not bar…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

….) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi). The Ld. DR further submits that in the case…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

….) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also reliance is placed by him on the decision in CIT v. Mukundray K. Shah (2007) 290 ITR 433 (SC) and CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi). The Ld. DR further submits that in the case…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…into consideration. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakashchahdra Nahta v. Union of India & Ors 247 ITR 274 which has been followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of the said assessee as reported in 301 ITR 134. Further, similar view has also been taken by the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Hertz & Weaves Engineers (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 45 TTJ 290. Further, it is seen that the AO has rejected the affidavits of the depositors for the reason that these affidavits should had been filed before her immediately after the recording of the statements. I do not agree…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…into consideration. This view is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakashchahdra Nahta v. Union of India & Ors 247 ITR 274 which has been followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of the said assessee as reported in 301 ITR 134. Further, similar view has also been taken by the ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Hertz & Weaves Engineers (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 45 TTJ 290. Further, it is seen that the AO has rejected the affidavits of the depositors for the reason that these affidavits should had been filed before her immediately after the recording of the statements. I do not agree…

Anju Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3810/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

…Ors. vs. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 0082; copy of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwini Gupta (2010) 322 ITR 0396; judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 and copy of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. M/s Ashish International (2011) ITA no. 4299 of 2009; ITAT, Delhi ‘SMC’ Bench decision dated 25.9.2018 in ITA Nos. 20121/Del/2018 to 2028/Del/2018 in the case of Shoubit Goel (HUF) & Ors. vs. ITO; ITAT, Delhi SMC decision dated 24.10.2018 in the acse of Amit Rastogi…

Anip Rastogi, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3809/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR

…Ors. vs. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 0082; copy of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwini Gupta (2010) 322 ITR 0396; judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 and copy of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. M/s Ashish International (2011) ITA no. 4299 of 2009; ITAT, Delhi ‘SMC’ Bench decision dated 25.9.2018 in ITA Nos. 20121/Del/2018 to 2028/Del/2018 in the case of Shoubit Goel (HUF) & Ors. vs. ITO; ITAT, Delhi SMC decision dated 24.10.2018 in the acse of Amit Rastogi…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…pal Premchand Limited (2007) 295 ITR 105(Delhi) 7. CIT V/s Khazan Singh and borther (2008) 304 ITR 234(P&H) 8. CIT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 236(Mad) 9. CIT V/s Maulik Kumar K shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) 10. Prakash Chandra Nahata V/s CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 11. CIT v/s D.K.Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 320 Delhi 12. DCIT v/s Redha Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) 13. Nirmal Fashions (P) Ltd. V.s DCIT (2009)123 TTJ (Kol) 180. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the above plea and submissions has deleted the additions by observing as under. 16 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…pal Premchand Limited (2007) 295 ITR 105(Delhi) 7. CIT V/s Khazan Singh and borther (2008) 304 ITR 234(P&H) 8. CIT V/s R.K.Venketchanalam (2008) 301 ITR 236(Mad) 9. CIT V/s Maulik Kumar K shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) 10. Prakash Chandra Nahata V/s CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) 11. CIT v/s D.K.Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 320 Delhi 12. DCIT v/s Redha Developers India Ltd. (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj) 13. Nirmal Fashions (P) Ltd. V.s DCIT (2009)123 TTJ (Kol) 180. 8. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the above plea and submissions has deleted the additions by observing as under. 16 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag…