Principal Commissioner of Income–tax v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

412 ITR 152High Court2019#16246 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 153ASection 158BCSection 158BFSection 158BFA(1)Section 158BFA(2)

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income–tax v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

ITA 123/JPR/2024[A.Y. 1989-90 to 1999-2000 (Block Period)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2024

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 158B

…be made, and as such impugned order deserves to be set aside. 12 Lunawat Gems Corporation vs. DCIT In support of his contention, learned AR has relied on decision in Principal Commissioner of Income–tax v. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 412 ITR 152 (Bom.) 21. On the other hand, Learned DR for the department has referred to observations made by Learned CIT(A) in para 5.2 of the impugned order and the reasons recorded therein so as not to treat said addition to the income of the assessee as income derived from the export, and as such contended that the appeal challenging the impugned order ev…

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 65/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh SonimindeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…CIT(A) has grossly erred in not even considering the judgement of Bombay High Court, in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Chawala Interbuild ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 Construction Co. P. Ltd [2019] 412 ITR 152 (Bom). In the aforesaid case, the assessee had filed details of the concerned thirteen parties with their PAN, addresses, amounts of TDS, dates of bills, dates of cheques, etc. It was held by High Court that the assessee had done everything possible to produce the necessary evidence which indicated that payments had been made to the parties conce…

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 64/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh SonimindeFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…CIT(A) has grossly erred in not even considering the judgement of Bombay High Court, in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Chawala Interbuild ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023 AY: 2013-14 &2015-16 Construction Co. P. Ltd [2019] 412 ITR 152 (Bom). In the aforesaid case, the assessee had filed details of the concerned thirteen parties with their PAN, addresses, amounts of TDS, dates of bills, dates of cheques, etc. It was held by High Court that the assessee had done everything possible to produce the necessary evidence which indicated that payments had been made to the parties conce…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SUR GEMS, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2078/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…relied on the following decisions : CIT v/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) 372 ITR 619 Babulal Borana v/s ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) PRI. CIT vs. MOHOMMAD HAJI ADAM & CO. & ORS. 104 CCH 0391 Mum HC Prin.CIT v/s Chawla Interbild Construction Pvt Ltd. 412 ITR 152 (Bom) 17. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the addition was made by the AO and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the fact that no cross examination was allowed of the party Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain and related parties to the assessee and therefore their statements can not be relied to make addition as the same is against the princip…

SUR GEMS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…relied on the following decisions : CIT v/s M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) 372 ITR 619 Babulal Borana v/s ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) PRI. CIT vs. MOHOMMAD HAJI ADAM & CO. & ORS. 104 CCH 0391 Mum HC Prin.CIT v/s Chawla Interbild Construction Pvt Ltd. 412 ITR 152 (Bom) 17. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the addition was made by the AO and partly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) by ignoring the fact that no cross examination was allowed of the party Mr. Bhanwarlal Jain and related parties to the assessee and therefore their statements can not be relied to make addition as the same is against the princip…

CHITRALEKHA,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.- 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 5220/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Chitralekha, The Asst. Commissioner Of 25, Andheri Industrial Estate, Income Tax-17(1), Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400053 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaafc1152B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Aarti Vissanji (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2019

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s case was reopened on the basis of information received from the sales Tax department to the effect that the assessee had obtained bogus bills from Jupiter Multitrade Private Ltd. 8. Even on merits, in the case of PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Ltd., 412 ITR 152 (Bom.) the Hon’ble High Court has held that where the assessee brings on record the name and address of parties their PAN, TDS deduction, date of bill, date of cheque and its number etc, in order to establish the genuineness of transaction of purchases, in such cases the assessee should not be held responsible for not producing the parties before…