Ramanand Sagar v. DCIT

256 ITR 134High Court2002#4414 most cited

What is Ramanand Sagar v. DCIT authority for?

No disallowance can be made if payments were made by account payee cheques and sales/closing stock are accepted.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ramanand Sagar v. DCIT · 256 ITR 134 · account payee cheques · sales accepted · closing stock accepted · no disallowance

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing Ramanand Sagar v. DCIT

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nd the sales/closing stock are accepted, no disallowance can be made : i) M/s Fancy Wear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Preciou…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nd the sales/closing stock are accepted, no disallowance can be made : i) M/s Fancy Wear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Preciou…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nd the sales/closing stock are accepted, no disallowance can be made : i) M/s Fancy Wear Vs ITO, 167 ITD 621 (Mum) ii) CIT Vs Oswal Chemical & Fertilizers Ltd. 200 taxman 170 (Del) iii) CIT Vs Nikunj Exim P. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom) iv) Ramanand Sagar Vs DCIT 256 ITR 134 (Bom) v) Babulal C Borana V ITO 282 ITR 251 (Bom) vi) CIT Vs M.K.Brothers 163 ITR 249 (Guj) vii) CIT V Nangalia Fabrics (P) Ltd. 220 taxman 17 (Guj) viii) CIT V Famish Enterprises 276 CTR 89 (Cal) ix) CIT V Precious Jewels Corporation 205 taxman 22 (Raj( (MAG) x) E-land International P.Ltd. V DCIT 124 TTJ 554 (Del) 13.1 Particularly, in “Preciou…

Omkar Metal and Alloys Corporation, C P Tank Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19. 2. 4, Matru Mandir

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2838/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…ess therefore requested to delete the additions. Appellant placed reliance on the following decisions which ppellant placed reliance on the following decisions which ppellant placed reliance on the following decisions which includes:- Ramanand Sagar Vs. DCIT (256 ITR 134), CIT v. Nangalia Ramanand Sagar Vs. DCIT (256 ITR 134), CIT v. Nangalia Ramanand Sagar Vs. DCIT (256 ITR 134), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 FR Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 FR Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 FR 547), N…

Dam Capital Advisors Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1991/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 43BSection 92E

…1 ITA 1991/Mum/2022 Dam Capital Advisors Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1991/Mum/2022 (Assessment year : 2012-13) DAM Capital Advisors Limited vs DCIT-4(1)(1), Mumbai One BKC, Tower C, 15th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Unit No.1511, Bandra Kurla Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 020 400 051 PAN : AAACK1586E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Hiro Rai / Ritu Punjabi Present for the Department Shri Abhishek Kumar Singh – Sr. D.R.…

Kugel Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Company Circle II(4), Chennai

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

ITA 348/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai vs. Genda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2033/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1835/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

Dharma Promoters Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 2514/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2513/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

Dharma Promoters Pvt Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2085/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., Acit Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aaccd-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Zeya Developers Pvt Ltd., Acit 341/36A, Ii Floor, Mangal Sain V. Corporate Circle -3(2), Building, Chennai -34. Bagh Kare Khan, Kishan Ganj, Delhi – 110 007. [Pan:Aaacz-3444-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1835/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Genda Buildcons Pvt Ltd., Ito Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur V. Corporate Ward -2(2), Barracks Road, Vepery, Chennai -34. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan:Aadcg-0885-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2085/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Dharma Promoters (P) Ltd., ACIT Times Partner, No. 58, Permabur v. Company Circle –I(4), Barracks Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 007. [PAN:AACCD-8247-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2513/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Zeya Developers Pvt…

Shri. Dinesh B Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly

ITA 357/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Morvi ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhele
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 251

…e; (c) the expenditure must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. If the assessee fails to satisfy any of these tests the expenditure claimed is not allowable The Hon’ble HC Bombay held so in the case of Ramanand Sagar (256 ITR 134). Thus, it is settled law that the onus of proof is on the assessee-appellant to establish that he purchases claimed as expense were genuine. This has not been discharged by assessee and hence the Id. AO has rightly disallowed the same. 6.8 Sec. 37 deals with the question relating to the allowability of the expenditure incurred for the purposed o…

ACIT-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Vgc Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 7004/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7004/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Mrs. SamathaFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punamiya, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…7004/Mum/2017 M/s VGC Diamond Pvt. Ltd Payments were made by account payee cheques. This fact would over shadow all other short comings. MATHER & PLATT (INDIA) LTD v. CIT 168 ITR 493 CAL ITO v. KASHMIR IND. PALACE 99 TAXMANN (CHD)(MAG) RAMANANDSAGAR v DCIT 256 ITR 134 (BOM) CIT - I v. NANGALIA FABRICS (P) LTD (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 206 (GUJARAT) CIT v. KORLAY TRADING CO. LTD (1998) 232 ITR 820 (CAL) CIT v. BASANT INVESTMENT CORPORATION (1999) 238 ITR 680 (CAL) Transaction duly supported by the evidence, no evidence that cash received back. Addition cannot be made. CIT v. M K BROS (163 ITR 249) ITO v. KAN…

I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Omkar Metal & Alloys Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 2119/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…tion made by the A.O. that purchases made by the appellant from the above parties are non-genuine is wrong and baseless therefore requested to delete the additions. Appellant placed reliance on the following decisions which includes:- Ramanand Sagar Vs. DCIT (256 ITR 134), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 FR 547), Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Born.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 FIR 249 (Guj.),etc. It is also argued that the dealers are regularly assessed to tax and the purchases properly reflected in the books of account and payments are ma…

Omkar Metal & Alloys Corporation, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1114/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1114 To 1116/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Omkar Metal & Alloys बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(4) Corporation Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Vs. Room No.47, Balkrishna Mumbai-400007. Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. Ita. Nos. 2119 To 2121/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(4) बिधम/ Omkar Metal & Alloys Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Corporation Vs. Mumbai-400007. Room No.47, Balkrishna Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai- 400004. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafo4997N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. M. Porwal Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since Common Grounds

For Appellant: Shri N. M. PorwalFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…tion made by the A.O. that purchases made by the appellant from the above parties are non-genuine is wrong and baseless therefore requested to delete the additions. Appellant placed reliance on the following decisions which includes:- Ramanand Sagar Vs. DCIT (256 ITR 134), CIT v. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. 220 Taxmann 17 (Guj.), CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 FR 547), Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 216 Taxman 171 (Born.), CIT v. M.K. Bros. 163 FIR 249 (Guj.),etc. It is also argued that the dealers are regularly assessed to tax and the purchases properly reflected in the books of account and payments are ma…

Mr Amrat B Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, W-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 5982/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaamrat B Prajapati Vs. Ito-19(1)(1) 2Nd Floor 8/10, Room No.15 Ganjawalla Building Matru Mandir Tardeo 2Nd Carpentar Street Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Akspp3697G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 251Section 37(1)

…(c) the expenditure must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession. If the assessee fails to satisfy any of these tests, the expenditure claimed is not allowable. The Hon'ble Bombay HC held so in the case of Ramanand Sagar( 256 ITR 134). Thus, it is settled law that the onus of proof is on the assessee-appellant to establish that the purchases claimed as expense were genuine. This has not been discharged by assessee and hence the Ld AO has rightly disallowed the same. 5 Amrat B Prajapati. 6.8 Sec.37 deals with the question relating to the allowability of the expenditure incur…

Idbi Capital Markets & Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 190/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhidbi Capital Markets & Dcit Range-4(1)(1) Securities Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mafatlal Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaaci1268F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Sh. H.N. Singh (Cit-Dr) Shri Manish Singh (Sr-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Sh. H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER IDBI Capital Markets & DCIT Range-4(1)(1) Securities Ltd., 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Vs. Mafatlal Center, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACI1268F Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR) Respondent by : Sh. H.N. Singh (CIT-DR) Shri Manish Singh (Sr-DR) Date of Hearing : 21.06.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is d…

Mohd Rizwan Mohd Kallan Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmd. Rizwan Mohd Kallan Ito 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7Th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’S Co-Operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Lbs Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 Pan: Agjpk2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Ar) Date Of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 253Section 274Section 3

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Md. Rizwan Mohd Kallan ITO 26(3)(4) Room No. 711, 7th Floor, Khan, Plot No. 603, Flat No.13, Bldg No. 7 D, Bombay Taxi C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Men’s Co-operative Society, Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. LBS Marg, Kurla (West), Mumbai-400070 PAN: AGJPK2270K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR) Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (AR) Date of Hearing :25.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The insta…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM DCIT 4(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 PAN/GIR No.AAJCS2965E Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by V.Justin / Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee by Shri Suresh Achaliya Date of Hearing 16/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by revenue against the order of CIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 28/02/2017…

Bhadresh Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 2083/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 101Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…producing the relevant material and no addition was called for on presumption. Further payment was made by A/c payee cheques this fact would over shadow all other short coming. Mather & Platt India Ltd, (1987) 168 ITR 493 (Cal.) Ramanand Sagar vs. DCIT (2002) 256 ITR 134 (Bom) 12. Reliance was placed on the decision of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA "No. 5604 of 2010, Bombay High Court, order dt. 17/12-2012, wherein the entire additions on account of bogus purchases were deleted. Further reliance was placed on the decision of Babulal C. Borana vs. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 25T (Bom.) (HC), wherein the en…

Ramanand Sagar v. DCIT (256 ITR 134) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax