Prakash Wine Agencies v. Income Tax Officer

38 TTJ 39Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1990#10576 most cited

What is Prakash Wine Agencies v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

An appellate authority cannot confirm a protective addition made by the Assessing Officer if the appeal involves determining the substantive addition and the owner of the real income.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Prakash Wine Agencies · 38 TTJ 39 · ITAT · protective assessment · substantive addition · appellate authority · owner of real income · income tax appeal · inconclusive addition · evasion of grounds of appeal

Issues it is cited on

section 149(1)(c)section 159third party informationprotective assessmentsection 5(2)first proviso to section 147section 151(2)non application of mindbusiness connectionsection 149(1)interest under section 234bsection 251

Judgments citing Prakash Wine Agencies v. Income Tax Officer

DCIT (Central), Bhopal vs. Shailendra Sharma, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

…of the same income successively in different hands. The tax can only be levied and collected in the hands of the person who has really earned the income and is liable to pay tax thereon (ii). Hon'ble Allahabad ITAT in the case of Prakash Wine Agencies (1990) 38 TTJ 39 (Allahabad) has held that an appellate authority should decide and determine the substantive addition and cannot confirm protective addition. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 6. In our opinion, there is merit in the assessee’s submission. So appellate authority is authorised to evade the ground of appeal which is ra…

Smt. Bhagwati Devi Meel, Mohan Kunj Veer Tejaji Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar C/O Kalani & Co. Chartered Accountants, 5Th Floor, Kilestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Sikar, Ward-3 Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…nts have been added/ disallowed. Therefore, the protective addition confirmed in the hands of the assessee is unjustified and uncalled for. SMT. BHAGWATI DEVI MEEL VS ITO, WARD 3, SIKAR 4. Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in case of Prakash Wine Agencies vs. ITO 38 TTJ 39 has held that right to make protective assessment is given to ITO but the appellant authority cannot evade the issue brought before it by way of appeal either by an assessee who is substantially assessed or one who is protectively assessed. Again Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt. Hemlata Agarwal vs. CIT 64 ITR 428 held that Tribunal as a…

Shri Balkrushna Ravichandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 2/RJT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash , CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Appeal A.Y. Appellant Respondent No. 1. IT(SS)A No. 2006-07 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 10/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 2. IT(SS)A No. 2007-08 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 11/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 3. IT(SS)A No. 2008-09 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansaro…

Shri Balkrushna Ravichandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 1/RJT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash , CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Appeal A.Y. Appellant Respondent No. 1. IT(SS)A No. 2006-07 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 10/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 2. IT(SS)A No. 2007-08 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 11/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 3. IT(SS)A No. 2008-09 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansaro…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Balkrishna R. Mehta, Rajkot

ITA 121/RJT/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash , CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Appeal A.Y. Appellant Respondent No. 1. IT(SS)A No. 2006-07 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 10/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 2. IT(SS)A No. 2007-08 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 11/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 3. IT(SS)A No. 2008-09 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansaro…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot vs. Shri Balkrishna R. Mehta, Rajkot

ITA 120/RJT/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash , CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. Appeal A.Y. Appellant Respondent No. 1. IT(SS)A No. 2006-07 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 10/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 2. IT(SS)A No. 2007-08 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansarovar 11/Rjt/2018 Central Cir-2, Apartments, Royal Park-6, Rajkot Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (ALOPM4962A) 3. IT(SS)A No. 2008-09 Ravichandra V. Mehta DCIT 7 th Floor, Mansaro…

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3731/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…made protective addition in one hand and substantive addition in the other hand as it is not open to him to make any inconclusive addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Wine Agencies vs ITO reported in 38 TTJ 39 (Allahabad), the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nartwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya vs ACIT (ITA No.715 to 719/Pune/2007), order dated 13.04.2011, he submitted that right to make protective assessment has been given to ITO but appellate authority cannot evade determination of issue as to who is the owner of real income when…

Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3730/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…made protective addition in one hand and substantive addition in the other hand as it is not open to him to make any inconclusive addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Wine Agencies vs ITO reported in 38 TTJ 39 (Allahabad), the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nartwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya vs ACIT (ITA No.715 to 719/Pune/2007), order dated 13.04.2011, he submitted that right to make protective assessment has been given to ITO but appellate authority cannot evade determination of issue as to who is the owner of real income when…

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3248/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…made protective addition in one hand and substantive addition in the other hand as it is not open to him to make any inconclusive addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Wine Agencies vs ITO reported in 38 TTJ 39 (Allahabad), the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nartwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya vs ACIT (ITA No.715 to 719/Pune/2007), order dated 13.04.2011, he submitted that right to make protective assessment has been given to ITO but appellate authority cannot evade determination of issue as to who is the owner of real income when…

Sh. Karamjit S. Jaiwswal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assesses are

ITA 3247/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(c)Section 151(2)

…made protective addition in one hand and substantive addition in the other hand as it is not open to him to make any inconclusive addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Prakash Wine Agencies vs ITO reported in 38 TTJ 39 (Allahabad), the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nartwarlal Radheshyam Bagadiya vs ACIT (ITA No.715 to 719/Pune/2007), order dated 13.04.2011, he submitted that right to make protective assessment has been given to ITO but appellate authority cannot evade determination of issue as to who is the owner of real income when…

Prakash Wine Agencies v. Income Tax Officer (38 TTJ 39) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax