(Sivan v. CIT

117 ITR 371High Court1979#6225 most cited

What is (Sivan v. CIT authority for?

Malpractices such as charging prices in excess of controlled prices cannot be attributed to an assessee unless there is specific material or evidence to prove their involvement.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sivan v. CIT · 117 ITR 371 · excess of controlled price · Malpractices · attributed to assessee · onus of proof · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A(b)Section 148A(d)

Judgments citing (Sivan v. CIT

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…ays accordingly. Reliance is placed on the following:- 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing ete Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 5. Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs DCIT (ITAT JPR) in ITA 1503/JP/2018 dated 15.02.2021 We also find it relevant to quote from letter dated 16.10.2023 (copy enclosed with this submission) issued to the assessee from the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Jaipur mentioning therein: "2. On verification of…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349, 360-61 (SC). The pres…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349, 360-61 (SC). The pres…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349, 360-61 (SC). The pres…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349, 360-61 (SC). The pres…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 87 ITR 349, 360-61 (SC). The pres…

Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/JPR/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1503/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Vishnu Prasad, D.C.I.T. Vs. Namdev Export, Circle-7, Opp.-Dhanopia Textiles, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aappp 9225 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Made By A.O. U/S 68 Alleging Cash Deposits In Bank Account As Undisclosed Income. 1.1 That, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Ignoring The Submission Of Assessee That The Said Amount Represented Sale Consideration Received By Assessee For Sale Of Land.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.CIT)
Section 68

…e laws: 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing etc Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 8 ITA 1503/JP/2018_ Sh. Vishnu Prasad Vs DCIT 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We also deliberated upon the judicial pronouncements referred by the parties. From perusal of the record, as per facts of the present case, we noticed tha…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.232 to 235/RPR/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd., Mahamaya Tower, 3rd & 4th Floor, In front of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABCR0695Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s.…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar
Section 132

…आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.232 to 235/RPR/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. M/s. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd., Mahamaya Tower, 3rd & 4th Floor, In front of Anupam Nagar, Near Varun Honda, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABCR0695Q ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2012-13 M/s.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

Shah Realtors, Thane vs. ACIT Cir (4), Thane

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh.B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Shah Realtors Acit Circle -4, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It 2Nd Floor, Parshwa Park, Road No. 16-Z, Padmavati, Beside Oriental Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Bank Of Commerce, Thane-400604. Ambadi Road,Vasai(W), Thane-401202 Pan: Abhfs7795J Appellant Respondent : Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate With Appellant By Sh. Sashank Dandu Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Suman Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-3, Thane, Dated 14Th January 2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Builder & Developer. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Assessment Year On 22Nd Of September 2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.61,10,630/-. The Assessment Was Completed On 20Th February 2015 Under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer While Passing Assessment Order Besides The Other Additions Made Addition Of Rs.2,52,65,247/- On Account Of Difference Of Sale Price Between Building M/S Shah Realtors No. 3 & Building No. 10, Sold During The Financial Year In Shah

For Respondent: Dr. K. Sivaram Sr. Advocate with
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253

…71/25 Taxman 80K (SC) and in CIT v. Godavari Corporation Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 by holding that the burden is on the Revenue to prove under-statement of the consideration. Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. M.J. Cherian [1979] 117 ITR 371 has held that the ITO cannot fix higher sales price without any evidence. The mere presumption that the excess price could have 10 M/s Shah Realtors been charged has been held to be not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. In view of the above factual and legal discussion the assessing officer was n…

DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri D.C. Kothari (CIT)

…ence and, therefore is wrong and bad in law. The settled rule of law is that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lai Chand \/s. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. Similarly the general report of Forward Market Commission in respect of fabricated contracts and other documents by MD & CEO of NMCE cannot be attributed to assessee company without any material or ev…

Neelkamal Realtors and Erectors India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2589/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Neelkamal Realtors & Dcit -5(1), Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor, 265-E, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Bellasis Road, Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit -5(1), M/S Neelkamal Realtors & Aayakar Bhavan, Erectors India Pvt. Ltd., Ground Mumbai-400020 Vs. Floor, 265-E, Bellasis Road, Mimbai Central, Mumbai-400008 Pan: Aabcn9254D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…on the Revenue; and the subsection has no application in the case of bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared.’. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Agricultural IT VS M.J. Cherian (1979) 117 ITR 371 (Ker) has held that the ITO can not fix higher sales price without any evidence. The mere presumption that the excess price could have been charged has been held to be not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. A survey of aforementioned judgments manifests that there is no law which obliges a trader to…

(Sivan v. CIT (117 ITR 371) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax