What is Sargam Cinema v. CIT authority for?

Additions to income are unwarranted if they are based on a flawed Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) report and ignore properly recorded book investments that have not been doubted. The assessment should consider Supreme Court and High Court decisions on the matter.

How many judgments cite Sargam Cinema v. CIT?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Sargam Cinema v. CIT (339 ITR 588), spanning 2016 to 2024.

Sargam Cinema v. CIT (339 ITR 588)

M/S Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/ALLD/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/ALLD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/ALLD/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 90/ALLD/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. JCIT(C.C.), Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/ALLD/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

M/S Kesarwani Jarda Bhandar, Allahabad vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 80/ALLD/2023[F.Y. 2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad22 Nov 2024

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Dr Neel Jain CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250

…and therefore, the addition was unwarranted because the issue was covered by various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court such as Sargam Cinema vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513 (SC) and CIT vs. Lucknow Public Education Society 339 ITR 588 (All). It was submitted that the DVO’s report was also liable to be rejected, because in the report there were a number of defects such as higher rate, incorrect measurement, inspection after a long time and lack of material found in the search. It was submitted that the addition made by considering the DVO’s report as a gospel truth and by ignor…

The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amit Shukla (JM) I.T.A. No. 351/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 271 122. Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Gorakhpur PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 13/VNS/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 273 209. CPC, Bengaluru PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 448/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 217/ALLD/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gorakhpur vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Limited, Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amit Shukla (JM) I.T.A. No. 351/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 271 122. Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Gorakhpur PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 13/VNS/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 273 209. CPC, Bengaluru PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 448/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 217/ALLD/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income…

DCIT, Gorakhpur vs. M/S Mahabir Jite Mills, Ltd., Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amit Shukla (JM) I.T.A. No. 351/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 271 122. Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Gorakhpur PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 13/VNS/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 273 209. CPC, Bengaluru PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 448/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 217/ALLD/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income…

The Mahabir Jute Mills Limited, Gorakhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI BENCH, VARANASI Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Amit Shukla (JM) I.T.A. No. 351/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 271 122. Tax (OSD), Circle-1, Gorakhpur PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 13/VNS/2023 (A.Y. 2020-21) The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, Sahjanwah, Gorakhpur 273 209. CPC, Bengaluru PAN : AAACT8708R (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 448/ALLD/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 217/ALLD/2017 (A.Y. 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner of Income…

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2006-07 Hafizuddin Hazi, Vs ITO, C/o Raj Kumar & Associates, CA, Ward-48 (2), L-7A (LGF), South Extn., Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAQPH6525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Shri Sachin Kumar, CA Revenue by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29th March, 2016…