S.K. Engineering v. JCIT

103 ITD 97Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#10291 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing S.K. Engineering v. JCIT

SHRI PRITAM SINGH GABEL,JANJGIR-CHAMPA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-JANJGIR CHAMPA, JANJGIR CHAMPA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 154/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.154/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Preetam Singh Gabel, M/S. Preetam Tractors, Baradwar Road, P.O. Sakti, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Pan : Agipg1118M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…ure cannot be ruled out. Our aforesaid view that the figure of a last year cannot safely be adopted as a benchmark for arriving at the reasonableness of an expenditure is supported by the order of ITAT, Bangalore in the case of S.K Engineering Vs. JCIT (2006) 103 ITD 97 (Bang.), wherein it was observed by the tribunal that merely for the reason that in the earlier year, the amount of commission paid by the assesee was 0.94%, therefore, the commission in excess thereof paid during the year was to be held as unreasonable for the purpose of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act could not be approved. It was observed by the T…

SAIRAM WHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 127/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 127/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sairam Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Krishna Nagar, Near Supela Police Station G.E. Road, Bhilai, Dist. Durg-490023 Pan : Aaocs8188G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Durg (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ananjay Kumar Tiwary, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…tion for the year under consideration as excessive or unreasonable within the meaning of Sec. 40A(2)(a) of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the order of the ITAT, Bangalore in the case of S.K Engineering Vs. JCIT (2006) 103 ITD 97 (Bangalore) and that of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of NAT Steel Equipment (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 482 (Mumbai). 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR, that as observed by the A.O, the assessee had not only failed to justify the…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3772/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3771/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OZONE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3770/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2937/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

M/S. OZONE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and those of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2935/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: A.Y. 2008-09
Section 14ASection 80I

…mitted that the onus to prove that the impugned expenditure were excessive or unreasonable was on the Assessing officer, which he failed to discharge while making the adhoc addition. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of S.K. Engineering vs. JCIT, 103 ITD 97 (Bang. Tribunal) and ACIT vs. Bombay Real Estate Developers Co. Pvt. Ltd. (64 DTR 137) and Anurag Agarwal vs. ACIT, ITA No. 497/Agra/2015. In alternate, the ld. Counsel ITA Nos. 2935, 2936 & 2937 and 3770, 3771 & 3772/Del/2015 28 submitted that in case any addition is sustained on this head, the enhanced profit of eligible unit may be considered…

NENINI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 654/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.654/Mum/2009 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Nenni Builders & बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ward 7(1)(1) Vs. C/O. G.P.Mehta & Co. Cas., Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, M.K.Road, 212, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn1968K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""थ" /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Satyanarayana Raju
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

…planation on record with regard to the applicability of the provision u/s.40A(2)(a) of the Act. We are of the view that the addition of the amount in question on this account is also wrong. In this regard we also placed reliance upon the law settled in [2006] 103 ITD 97, Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in case titled as S.K,Engg. Vs, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.), Special Range – II and Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in (1990) 39 TTJ (Del) 132 in case titled as Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Hon’ble ITAT Madras Bench in (1979) 8 TTJ (Mad) 589 in case titled as Second Inc…

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3688/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2006-07 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, Bses Bhawan, Nehru Place, Circle-3(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., Circle 3(1), Bses Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aagcs3187H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 154

…j.) − CIT v. Gopala Polyplast Ltd. : ITA NO. 265/2009 (Guj.) − JCIT v. ITC Ltd.: 112 ITD 57 (Kol.)(SB) − Jagdamba Rollers Flour Mill Ltd. vs ACIT: 117 ITD 260(TM) (Nag.) − Aradhana Beverages & Foods Co. (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT:51 SOT 426 (Del) − S.K. Engg vs. JCIT: 103 ITD 97 (Bang.) − Rangoon Chemical Works (P) Limited: 100 Taxman163 (Ahd.) (Mag) − Kinetic Honda Motor Ltd V. JCIT 77 ITD 393 − Shyam Oil Cake Ltd V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 414 (Jd.) − Vikshara Trading & Investment (P) Limited: 61 TTJ 6 (Ahd.) − Beta Naphthol (P) Limited: 50 TTJ 375 (Ind.) 36.17 In the instant case, the assessing officer has failed to bring on rec…