How many judgments cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT?

131 judgments on BharatTax cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 147.

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

386 ITR 162High Court2016#782 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 366,418 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 68 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial non application of mind erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax section 119 share application money section 263 section 26

Judgments citing Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

M/S Sapphire Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 855/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 282Section 68

…ecision of the Tribunal in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs CIT (supra) was the subject matter of the appeal by the assessee before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Raj Mandir Estates (P)Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) was pleased to uphold the order of the tribunal. At the time of hearing of the appeal it was also brought to our notice that as against the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court aforesaid some of the assessees preferred a petition for Special Leave to appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its order d…

M/S. Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 2215/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Cc-3(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aacck 5813 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arises. 21 M/s Krishna Tissues Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2014-15 5.6. We hold that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs CIT reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal) is not applicable at all to the facts of the instant case. In the case before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, there is a finding to the effect that the recipient company of share capital with premium is a paper company and does not carry on any business to justify such huge premium. Whereas in the instant case, the assessee company before…

Surajdev D. Shukla, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 24, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

ITA 5340/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surajdev D. Shukla, The Principal Commissioner Of – B/104, Raghunath Krupa Bldg, Income Tax – 31, Near Sabnis Hospital, Mumbai Goregaon (East), Vs. Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Alhps9881K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 143Section 263Section 68

…he case of Horizon Investment Company Ltd. vs. CIT, Arbee International 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 vs. ACIT Range, Mumbai (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum) and the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, Kolkata – III 386 ITR 162 in support of the contention of the revenue. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. DR. The Ld. PCIT has pointed out the material discrepancies in the assessment order mentioned in detail in the order. The Ld. PCIT has mentioned in the order itself that show cause notice u/s 263…

Devkant Synthetics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3153/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri B Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 263

…ke u/s 14A r.w.r.8D despite the fact that there is a specific mechanism provided under 5 I . T . A . N o . 3 1 5 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 the Act to deal with such type of disallowances. The ld. DR relied on the following decisions : a) Rajrnandir Estates Pvt Ltd -386 ITR 162 b) Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd -155 ITD 171 c) Kalwa Devadattam & Ors-49 ITR 165 d) K.S.N. Bhatt -37 CTR 273 e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand -24 ITR 506 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the material placed before us during the course of hearing including the decisions of authorities below and also the decisions relied up…

Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2158/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017 Assessment Year:2009-10 Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. Commissioner of 117, Hans Bhawan Income Tax, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg New Delhi New Delhi TAN/PAN:AALCS5682G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri K.P. Garg, C.A. Respondent by: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 24 08 2017 Date of pronouncement: 25 10 2017 O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 17/3/2017, passed by…

ACIT 16(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Champalal S. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 1295/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Shri Champalal S. Shah, Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), A-8, Maulana Shaukat Ali Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. Road, Matru Mandir, Grant Road (East), Mumbai 400 007. Mumbai – 400007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 2415/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07) बिाम/ Income Tax Officer – 16(2)(3), Shri Champalal S. Shah, B-33, Pannalal Terrace, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, V. 2N D Floor, Grant Road (E), 2N D Floor, Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 007. Tardeo Road, Mumbai 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aahps4629Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta Revenue By : Shri P.R. Ghosh, Cit D.R.

For Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)

…against the Assessee. The impugned order of ITAT is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the AO is restored to file.” Reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v Pr. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162(Cal. HC), wherein Lordships has discussed the concept of laundering of black money as follows: “In a commentary on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by Dr. M. C. Mehanathan published by Lexis Nexis, 2014, the steps of money laundering are described as follows:— "STEPS OF MONEY-LAUNDERING Although money-laundering often involves a comp…

Champalal S. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1295/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri P.R. Ghosh, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S. Ranbaxy Holding Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1804/DEL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri P. Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(3)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…irected to estimate the disallowance u/s 14A on reasonable basis. Ld. DR also relied upon decision of Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. (supra), decision of the Calcutta High court in the case of Rajmandir Estates(P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 386 ITR 162 as confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (Supreme Court) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of South India Steel Rolling Mills vs. CIT 224 ITR 654. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that AO determined…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…is concerned, explained that there was no elaborate discussion of facts. So far as, 295 ITR 282 (SC) is concerned, it was contended that it is against the assessee and speaking order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 386 ITR 162, (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC), Arvee International vs Addl. CIT 101 ITD 495 (ITAT) (Bom.) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl.CIT & Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and in Kapil Ratan Associates vs CIT 69 SOT 188 (Bom.) order dated 14/01/2015. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that…

Shivangi International, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishishivangi International, Vs. Cit, Meerut Cold Storage Building, Aayakar Bhawan, Delhi Road, Meerut Bhaisali Ground, Meerut Pan: Aadfs3912Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 68

…e ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the ld CIT relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 and also of the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in case of Raj Mandir Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 against which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP of the assessee. He further referred to the various issues involved and submitted that ld Assessing Officer has not carried out any enquiry but merely believed and accepted whatever is stated before him. In view of this he submitted that ld CIT is fully justified in assuming jurisdicti…

Madhurima International P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

ITA 421/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.421/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Madhurima Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ International Private Income Tax -3, V. Limited, 612, Aayakar Bhawan, 122, Maker Chamber-Iii, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafcm2533E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…er enquiries, hence, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the assessee is not applicable in the instant case. The ld. Pr. CIT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162( Cal. HC) and also decision of the Kol.-tribunal in the case of Subhalakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (2015) 155 ITD 171(Kol-trib.) . The ld. Pr. CIT observed that the A.O. conducted exceedingly inadequate enquiry which falls into category of ‘no enquiry’ which resulted in drawing incorrect assumption of facts , makes the orders erroneous in so…