Senate v. DCIT

114 TTJ 856Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18759 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing Senate v. DCIT

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…t be used in the case of the assessee as held in the following caselaws: 1) Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT - 333 ITR 436 - Guj HC (CLPB page 430/431) 2) Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in Senate vs. DCIT - 181 TTJ 562 (CLPB page 436/446), 3) P.Srinivas Naik vs ACIT - 114 TTJ 856 - ITAT Bangalore (CLPB page 133/136) 4) PCIT vs Vinita Chaurasia - 394 ITR 758 - DEL HC (CLPB page 80/91) Since the department itself has held the material belongs to Bharat S Ghorpade no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Secondly the seized material A/BSG/01 & A/BSG/02 seized is mentioned in panchanama issued to SY Ghorpade/…

Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

…that unless 153C proceeding is done no assessment can be made based on seized material seized from third parties. 1) Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT - 333 ITR 436 - Guj HC 2) Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in Senate vs. DCIT - 181 TTJ 562 3) P.Srinivas Naik vs ACIT - 114 TTJ 856 - ITAT Bangalore 4) PCIT vs Vinita Chaurasia - 394 ITR 758 - DEL HC There has been reference to statements on oath from Bharat S Ghorpade , Karthikeya M Ghorpade , Ambika Ghorpade and others. However no copies offering for cross examination. Said statements cannot be held against the assessee. In this case no explanation has been called from the…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

…same belonged to the assessee. In this case, the material referred A/BMM-OFF/4, A2/BMM/3 & A2/BMM/4 etc belonged to the firm Bharat Mines and Minerals. In support of this contention, the assessee relies on the following case laws: 1) P.Srinivas Naik vs ACIT - 114 TTJ 856 - ITAT Bangalore. 2) PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC. In view of this it is prayed that the assessment and the addition therein required to be vacated. It is further submitted that while making the assessment and the addition u/s 10B, the AO relied on statements of Mr.Rajagopal Upadhyaya and Mr.Lakshminarayan. The statem…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Moon Apartments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 5715/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh.K.N.Charydcit, Vs Moon Apartments Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-Ii, D-19, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi Faridabad. Pan-Aaecm5479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Rajesh Arora, Ca Date Of Hearing 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2017

…on precedent for fastening the liability on the assessee is that the document or the asset found seized during the search should belong to the assessee, as such following the decisions reported in pg. 2 P.Srinivasa Naik vs ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Banglore 114 TTJ 856 and Vijaybhai N.Chandrani 2331 CTR 474 Gujarat High Court. Ld.CIT(A) held that no liability could be fastened on the assessee basing on the document which does not belong to him. Ld.CIT(A) found that the alleged document No.52 relates only to the details of transactions of M/s Vipul Ltd. and the details of the commission and by Mr. Masand. Furth…