Punjab & Haryana in CIT Faridabad v. Smt. Salochana Bhatia

208 Taxmann 224High Court2012#23705 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 143(3)businessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Punjab & Haryana in CIT Faridabad v. Smt. Salochana Bhatia

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…td. [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj)] (b) CIT v. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 (Raj)] (c)PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] (d) CIT vJacksons House [198 Taxman 385 (Del)] (e) CIT v. Jananamandal Ltd. [214 Taxman 49 (All)] (f) CIT v. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 10.6. The appellants further, submit that merely because an addition is made in the assessment order, it does not mean that the books of account are not reliable. An addition to total income cannot be a ground to invoke section 145(3) and reject the books of account. In view of the above, it is submitted that the action of the Assess…

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

…td. [216 Taxmann 225 (Guj)] (b) CIT v. Ceramic Industries [396 ITR 509 (Raj)] (c)PCIT v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. [388 ITR 237 (Guj)] (d) CIT vJacksons House [198 Taxman 385 (Del)] (e) CIT v. Jananamandal Ltd. [214 Taxman 49 (All)] (f) CIT v. Salochana Bhatia [208 Taxmann 224 (P&H)] 10.6. The appellants further, submit that merely because an addition is made in the assessment order, it does not mean that the books of account are not reliable. An addition to total income cannot be a ground to invoke section 145(3) and reject the books of account. In view of the above, it is submitted that the action of the Assess…

M/S REAL CONERGY (I) PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A), The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated

Section 143(3)

…1 M/s Real Conergy (1) P. Ltd. Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Real Conergy(1) Pvt. ITO, Ltd. Ward-15(2) S-12, 2nd floor, Uphaar Vs. New Delhi Commercial Complex, Green Park Extension, New Delhi PAN- AADCR3480R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv & Sh. Darbara Singh, CA Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/08/2023 Date of Pronouncement 18/08/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the…

Punjab & Haryana in CIT Faridabad v. Smt. Salochana Bhatia (208 Taxmann 224) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax