SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

300 ITR 205Supreme Court of India2008#1175 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. CIT · Sudarshan Silks SC · Section 153A · Section 132(1)(a) · Section 132(2) · search and seizure assessment · illegal payment · STPI unit · Section 10A · enduring benefit test · business transfer agreement

Also reported as

169 Taxmann 321

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 153A Section 143(3)Section 10A Section 147 Section 148 Section 139(1)Section 234A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

stpi unit test of enduring benefit section 132(2)section 203 section 132(1)(a)convertible foreign exchange software technology park illegal payment section 153(a)section 10(2)section 39 business transfer agreement

Judgments citing SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES v. CIT

DCIT Central Circle-2, Noida Up vs. Apple Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Noida Up

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4460/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendrakumar Billaiyashri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRAKUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4459/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2011-12] ITA No. 4460/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2014-15] The Dy. C.I.T Vs. M/s Apple Metal Industries Pvt Ltd Central Circle – 2 B-16, Sector – 2, Noida Noida Uttar Pradesh PAN : AAACD 7670 E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Goel, CA Shri Nippun Mittal, CA Department By : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 23.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT ME…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Apple Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Noida Up

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 4459/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendrakumar Billaiyashri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

Section 132Section 153C

Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 258/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No.5, Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground Floor Opera House, 2(4), Mumbai, 802, Old फनाभ/ Hinduja College Lane, Mumbai- Cgo Annex Building, M.K. 400 004 Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcr7550G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Smt. Leena Srivastava, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 32(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “D” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयपऔय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 258/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) M/s Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop NO.5, Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground Floor Opera House, 2(4), Mumbai, 802, Old फनाभ/ Hinduja College Lane, Mumbai- CGO Annex Building, M.K. 400 004 road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी…

The D C I T -3(1), Indore vs. Shri Deepak Kalra, Indore

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 679/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Ltd ITA No.1081/Kol/2013 order dated 15.4.2016 (supra) and relevant extract of the finding of Tribunal is reproduced below which has been arrived at after relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudharshan Silks & Sarees V/s CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 and other judgments of Co- ordinate Benches:- 8.4. From the above definition, it is very clear that there should be some undisclosed income in the form of money, bullion etc or any entry in the books of account or other documents and the same should be found in the course of search. It is undisputed that nothing incriminating was found during t…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri. Vikram Reddy

In the result, the fifth substantial question of

ITA/291/2013HC Karnataka24 Feb 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 260Section 260A

…aw that tribunal is fact finding authority and a decision on facts on the tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it, which says the finding of the tribunal is perverse.[SEE: ‘SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. Therefore, the substantial questions of law 1 to 4 are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 24 12. Now we may advert to the fifth substantial question of law. The tribunal para 92 of its order has held that the Assessing Officer has no…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Eds Electronics Data Systems India Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/680/2015HC Karnataka15 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 80H

…w that tribunal is fact finding authority and a decision on facts on the tribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it, which says the finding of the tribunal is perverse. [SEE: ‘SUDARSHAN SILKS & SAREES VS. CIT’, 300 ITR 205 SCC @ 211 and ‘MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS VS. CIT’, 378 ITR 640 (SC) @ 648]. It is pertinent to note that even in the substantial question of law, no element of perversity is either pleaded or demonstrated before this court. 12 In view of preceding analysis, the substantial question of law framed by a bench of this court is answered…