Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

386 ITR 162High Court2016#781 most cited

What is Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT authority for?

The Principal Commissioner can revise an assessment under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry into share application money or cash credits under Section 68 was inadequate, constituting an order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such credits remains with the assessee.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited · Pr. CIT · Section 263 · Section 68 · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · share application money · cash credits · onus of proof · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · revision proceedings · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialnon application of minderroneous and prejudicialprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 119share application moneysection 263section 26

Judgments citing Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

…Ashok Logani [(2011) 202 Taxman. 201], Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held revision u/s 263 to be valid when it was found that there was no proper consideration by A.O to issues at hand and he left many loose ends. Similarly, in the case of Raj Mandir Estates [386 ITR 162] and Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO [2017 TIOL-2526-H.C Kolkata-IT], it was held by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of I.T. Act on the ground that the A.O did not make any proper enquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee. 10. Accordingly, after careful examination of the…

GOLDEN GOENKA CREDIT PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) - 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2021-22 Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd.……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 24 Magma House, 10Th Floor, 24, Park Street, Park Centre, W.B. – 700016.. [Pan: Aaccr3964K] Vs. Pcit (Central) -2, Kolkata…………...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. P N Barnwal, Cit - Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Of The Principal Cit (Central)-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pcit”) Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021–22. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Showing Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act At Nil. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act Was Conducted On 18.12.2021 In The Cases Of Raj Group & Others By Dit(Inv.). The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Going Over The Submission Made By The Assessee & Notices U/S 143(2) & Golden Goenka Credit Pvt. Ltd 142(1) Were Issued. However, The Assessing Officer Assessed Total Income Of The Assessee At A Loss Of Rs.10,36,29,610/- & Further Assessed The Income Of Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act As Nil. The Ld. Pcit By Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Has Found That The Discrepancies On The Following Issues:

Section 115JSection 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 263

…td in the order of the Assessing Officer holding the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5.2 We have gone through the cited decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 [Cal-HC] which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the ex…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…ted 29.11.2017; (iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); (iv) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC); (v) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal); (vi) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 taxman 127 (SC); (vii) ITAT, Delhi in PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – ITA No.2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018; (viii) Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 dated 04.01.2012; (ix) ITAT, Delhi in CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. 65 ITD 263; (x) Hon’b…

GAURAV KUMAR ARYA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwals vs. CIT [1073] 88 ITR 323; 4. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT [ 70 taxmann.co.124 - (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] 8 5 Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 6. Order of Hon'ble ITAT F-Bench in the case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 7. Order of Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 34…

SUMAN LATA,NOIDA vs. ITO,WARD-3(2), NOIDA

In the result, the case remanded back to CIT(A)

ITA 4919/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Yr: 2012-13

Section 68

…placed on the decisions of CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd.-350 ITR 407(Del); CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. -342 ITR 169 (Del.); CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. -333 ITR 119 (Del.): Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)]. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48/262 Taxman 74/412 ITR 161 (SC). The Court gave out its verdict on 05th March, 2019, laying down certain important ratio that initial onus i…

QADER ABDUL RAZZAQUE ABDUL,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…9-10 15. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [155 ITD 171 (Kol)], Rajmandir ITA Nos.1007 & 1008/PUN/2024 Estates [386 ITR 162 (Cal)] etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. 16. We also find that the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT (2021) 1…

ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2),KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA vs. M/S. ANUBANDH FINANCIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2390/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री जॉजज माथान, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 2390/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), M/s. Anubandh Financial Kolkata Vs. Services Private Limited (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCA2417N C.O. No.: 5/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Anubandh Financial ACIT, Central Circle-3(2), Services Private Limited Vs. Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCA2…

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, PCIT, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4th floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AAEPJ 9613 N Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA Assessee by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 30/07/2025 : 31/07/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed aga…

JAYPEE FERTILIZERS & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…iries, upheld the revision done by the CIT.  In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt Ltd vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in SubhlakshmiVanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal)etc and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned.  In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)…

ACCRECENT WAY MARKETING (P) LTD.,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

ITA 358/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण गुवाहाटी पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्ुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री मनमोहन दास, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 358/GTY/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Accrecent Way Marketing Deputy Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle-3, Vs. Guwahati (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAFCA8279H Appearances: Assessee represented by : Anil Kumar Agarwala, FCA. Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT. Date of concluding the he…

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e of Tara Devi Aggarwals v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC) 6. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512 7. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 8. Order of Hon'ble ITAT F-Bench in the case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 9. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Infosys Technoglies Ltd. 341 IT 293 dated…

SHREE BALAJI ASSOCIATES PUNE LLP,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…the CIT. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir 5 ITA Nos.1007 & 1008/PUN/2024 Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (…

SHREE BALAJI ASSOCIATES PUNE LLP,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1007/PUN/2024[AY 2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…by the CIT. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir 5 ITA Nos.1007 & 1008/PUN/2024 Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (S…

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…es, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (S…

HERMON EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 347/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 68

…laced on the decisions of CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd.-350 ITR 407(Del); CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. - 342 ITR 169 (Del.); CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. - 333 ITR 119 (Del.); Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)). Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. reported in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48/262 Taxman 74/412 ITR 161 (SC). The Court gave out its verdict on 05th March, 2019, laying down certain important ratio that initial onus…

ITO, WARD-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TELPLAY PACKAGING SOLUTIONS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5892/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 68

…g.)/44 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi); (iv) Olwin Tiles India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2016] 382 ITR 291/237 Taxman 342/66 taxmann.com 8 (Guj.); (v) B.R. Petrochem (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2017] 81 taxmann.com 424 (Mad.); and (vi) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 162/240 Taxman 306/70 taxmann.com 124 (Cal.), cited on behalf of the respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capital were admittedly only by way of book adjustment and not actual receipts which could not be substantiated as receipts towards share subscription money.” 5. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the…

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

…by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir 9 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 8…

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…oner of Income Tax (2021) 430 ITR 121 (Bom.); iii. CIT Vs. Maithan International (2015) 375 ITR 123 (Calcutta); iv. Nagal Garment Industris (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2020) 113 taxmann.com 4 (MP); v. Rajamandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.); 14 ITA No.945/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 vi. CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Gauhati); vii. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All.); viii. PT. Lashkari Ram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 272 ITR 309 (All.); ix. PCIT Vs. Smt. Manju Devi Chourasia (2024) 161 taxmann.com 809 (Jharkhand); x. Po…

BALHANUMAN COMMODEAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), KOLKATA

ITA 116/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Balhanuman Commodeal Pvt. I.T.O., Ward-5(4), Kolkata, Ltd., Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 7, Red Cross Place, 4th Floor, Vs Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata - 700069 (PAN: AAECB5704H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 03.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against t…

AMARPADMA CREDITS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Baid, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 68

…d on the decisions of CIT vs. Nipun Builders and Developers P. Ltd.-350 ITR 407(Del); CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. - 342 ITR 169 (Del.); CIT vs. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. 333 ITR 119 (Del.); and - Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT-386 ITR 162 (Cal)]. 5.5.1 In this case, it is clear that the appellant has not been able to discharge its onus to prove the nature and source of impugned credits to the satisfaction of the AO/ NFAC. Therefore, the addition made by the AO under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act is found correct and accordingly ground of appeal No.3 is dismissed.”…

Showing 1–20 of 131 · Page 1 of 7

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162) — Cited in 131 Judgments | BharatTax