S. Joshi v. ITO

436 ITR 302High Court2021#14203 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 250Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

preponderance of probabilitycolourable devicepanchnamablock periodpenny stockdocuments seizedloose papersaccommodation entrysatisfaction notesection 151genuineness of the transactionescapement of income

Judgments citing S. Joshi v. ITO

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…inst Wagend Infra in SEBI or BSE notices (trading having resumed from 15-07- 2016), and invoked, inter alia, Sawankumar T. Jajoo [2025] 473ITR 201 (Cal), Harsh Vardhan Bansal [2024] 168 taxmann.com 188 (Del), Archit Gupta 210 ITD 27 (Del), Kantibhai D. Narola 436 ITR 302 (Guj), Shapoorji Pallonji &Co. 288 Taxman 661 (SC), Ranbaxy Laboratories 336 ITR 136 (Del), Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 343 (Raj), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court’s recent decision in Principal CIT v. Sawankumar T. Jajoo (supra) to contend that once primary evidence is furnished the onus shifts to the department and…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…inst Wagend Infra in SEBI or BSE notices (trading having resumed from 15-07- 2016), and invoked, inter alia, Sawankumar T. Jajoo [2025] 473ITR 201 (Cal), Harsh Vardhan Bansal [2024] 168 taxmann.com 188 (Del), Archit Gupta 210 ITD 27 (Del), Kantibhai D. Narola 436 ITR 302 (Guj), Shapoorji Pallonji &Co. 288 Taxman 661 (SC), Ranbaxy Laboratories 336 ITR 136 (Del), Shri Ram Singh306 ITR 343 (Raj), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court’s recent decision in Principal CIT v. Sawankumar T. Jajoo (supra) to contend that once primary evidence is furnished the onus shifts to the department and…

Rohit Prakashchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 147Section 148

…ubmitted that the Assessing Officer cannot record only some of the reasons and keep back the others to be disclosed before the Court if the action is challenged in court of law, for which reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Kantibhai D. Narola, 436 ITR 302 (Guj.). He further submitted that the PCIT had given the approval to the incomplete reason as recorded by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the approval granted under Section 151 of the Act was vitiated and invalid. The other contention of the Ld. AR was that the reason of the Assessing Officer was based on material found during search in the cas…

The Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 432/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…g the “consequential assessment proceedings”) cannot be relied upon for justifying “assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C”. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO – 324 ITR 154 (Bom) – Para 9 (Pgs.6-13); Kantibhai D. Narola v ACIT− 436 ITR 302 (Guj) Para 32(i) (Pgs.14-25); Hindustan Lever Ltd. – 268 ITR 332 (Bom) – Para 20 (Pgs.26-29); In the facts of the present case, - Contents of the satisfaction note do not indicate that the so-called material has a bearing on determination of total income for AY 2013-14; In fact, there is no reference to any material pertaining to AY 2013-14. Henc…

The United Builders Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3465/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…g the “consequential assessment proceedings”) cannot be relied upon for justifying “assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C”. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO – 324 ITR 154 (Bom) – Para 9 (Pgs.6-13); Kantibhai D. Narola v ACIT− 436 ITR 302 (Guj) Para 32(i) (Pgs.14-25); Hindustan Lever Ltd. – 268 ITR 332 (Bom) – Para 20 (Pgs.26-29); In the facts of the present case, - Contents of the satisfaction note do not indicate that the so-called material has a bearing on determination of total income for AY 2013-14; In fact, there is no reference to any material pertaining to AY 2013-14. Henc…

Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3464/AHD/2016[2013-14 (Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…g the “consequential assessment proceedings”) cannot be relied upon for justifying “assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C”. Reliance is placed on following decisions: Prashant S. Joshi vs. ITO – 324 ITR 154 (Bom) – Para 9 (Pgs.6-13); Kantibhai D. Narola v ACIT− 436 ITR 302 (Guj) Para 32(i) (Pgs.14-25); Hindustan Lever Ltd. – 268 ITR 332 (Bom) – Para 20 (Pgs.26-29); In the facts of the present case, Contents of the satisfaction note do not indicate that the so-called material has a bearing on determination of total income for AY 2013-14; In fact, there is no reference to any material pertaining to AY 2013-14. Hence,…

Noble Tradelink Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Ward 1(5), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 302/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 68

…ment only at the instance of Investigation Wing, Mumbai is illegal and bad in law. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases: 1. Reynolds Shirting Ltd. vs ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 554 (Bom.- HC. 2. Kantibhai Dharmashibhai Narola vs ACIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj) 3. PCIT vs Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677 (Del. H.C.) 7 M/S. NOBLE TRADELINK PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR 4. Balaji Health Care Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (2019) 199 TTJ 966 (Jaipur Trib) 5. CIT &Anr. Vs Dr. N. Thippa Shetty (2010) 322 ITR 525 (Ker.) 6. G.K. Consultants Ltd. VS ITO (ITA No.1502/Del/2013 dated 27- 06-2014 (Del.…

S. Joshi v. ITO (436 ITR 302) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax