Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd.

81 Taxmann.com 109High Court2017#7292 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Meenakshi Overseas (P.) Ltd.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SIDDHESHWARI VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2280/Kol/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) Dcit, Central Circle-1(2), Vs Siddheshwarivyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2Nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 Pan No. :Aancs 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Cit-Dr निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shrisoumitra Choudhury & Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenueagainst The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-20, Dated 06.05.2025For The Assessment Year2012-2013. 2. The Appeal Of The Revenue Is Barred By 69 Days. Considering The Submissions Of The Ld. Cit-Dr & Looking To The Facts Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.6,82,00,000/- Made U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credits Received From Shell Entities In The Guise Of Share Capital.

For Appellant: ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA No.2280/KOL/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2012-2013) DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Vs SiddheshwariVyapaar Pvt Ltd Kolkata 2nd Floor, 159, Ravindra Sarani Kolkata-700007 PAN No. :AANCS 2337 J (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee by : ShriSoumitra Choudhury and Rainak Jain, Advocates सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of…

SH. BALJINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL 171, MODEL TOWN LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. JATIN ABBI THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 689/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The Acit, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, Vs Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Bmcpk7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit, Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 689/CHD/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम Shri Baljinder Kumar Aggarwal, The ACIT, 171, Model Town, Circle-1, VS Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: BMCPK7473A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR तारीख/Date of Hearing : 21.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तारीख…

QUADEYE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 792/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata-700026. [Pan: Aabce7790H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Of Rs.2,47,48,393/- Incurred By The Assessee In Commodities Dealing In National Multi Commodity Exchange Of India Limited (‘Nmce’) Platform & Further Making Addition Of Rs.4,92,263/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Alleged Commission That Might Have Been Paid By The Assessee In Booking The Aforesaid Bogus Loss In Commodity Trading.

Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.792/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Quadeye Securities Pvt. Ltd..………...........………………....Appellant 184, Harish Mukherjee Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700026. [PAN: AABCE7790H] vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata….………….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concludi…

PV CORPORATE ADVISORY SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8027/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Pv Corporate Advisory Services Vs. Ito, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/O Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, Ats Greens Paradiso, Chi Iv, Noida. Pan: Aadcp7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI (Through Virtual Hearing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 PV Corporate Advisory Services Vs. ITO, Pvt. Ltd., Ward-19(3), C/o Rohit Tiwari, New Delhi. 8024, ATS Greens Paradiso, CHI IV, Noida. PAN: AADCP7328L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue by : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th May, 2019 of the CIT(A)-7, New Delhi relating to assessme…

TRENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 1162/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1162/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Trent Ltd., Dcit-Range-2(3) Bombay House, 2Nd Floor Aayakar Bhavan Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort Mumbai. Mumbai-400 001. Pan:Aaacl 1838 J आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/1725/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 वष" Dcit-Range-2(3) Trent Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:24.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 06/12/2010 Of The Cit (A)-6,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross-Appeals For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Retailing For Ready- Made Garments Etc.Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 27.10.2005,Declaring Total Income At Rs. 12.75 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act, On 05.10.2007,Determining Its Income At Rs. Nil,After Setting Off Loss Of The Earlier Years.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)

…n the absence of any such circumstances, namely, any material leading to a different conclusion or change in the legal position, the consistency on the part of the Revenue should be adhered to.” We would also like to refer to the case of Jyoti Prakash Dutta (367 ITR 568) of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.Facts of the case were that the Tribunal had disallowed the claim in the case of the assessee in prior years saying that a film production unit or a company was not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80-IB of the Act,but the disallowance was set aside by the High Court.The Department,in spite…