Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

M/S Nikhil Estate P Ltd, Indore vs. The ACIT Central Circle (3) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

…nt case. 15. The surrendered income ought to have been treated as deemed income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961, however, on the wrong provision applied in the assessment order though the effect is one and the same the surrendered income (2011) 339 ITR 651 Chhattisgarh cannot be held that it was not an income under the Page 24 of 30 Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Page 25 of 30 provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961. As such, the substantial question of law, i.e., (i) and (iii) are answered accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Va…

M/S Supremo India Ltd, Indore vs. The Ait Central 3, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

…nt case. 15. The surrendered income ought to have been treated as deemed income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961, however, on the wrong provision applied in the assessment order though the effect is one and the same the surrendered income (2011) 339 ITR 651 Chhattisgarh cannot be held that it was not an income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961. As such, the substantial question of law, i.e., (i) and (iii) are answered accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financi…

M/S D. N. Singh Through Partner Dudheshwar Nath Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

…5. The surrendered income ought to have been treated as deemed income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961, however, on the wrong provision applied in the assessment order though the effect is one and the same the surrendered income 20 (2011) 339 ITR 651 Chhattisgarh 80 cannot be held that it was not an income under the provisions of s.69 of the Act, 1961. As such, the substantial question of law, i.e., (i) and (iii) are answered accordingly.” (Emphasis supplied) 68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good p…

M/S Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., Bhilai(Cg) vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Bhilai(Cg)

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. B-495, Cross Street-25, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020 (C.G.) Pan :Aaeck3160C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

…ht the same to tax separately as its income under the head “business income” u/s.69 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid view, the A.O had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (CG). 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and on recasting the profit & loss account of the assessee company, i.e, after excluding the amount of surrendered income from its disclosed net profit, the A.O observed that the NP rate of the assessee worked out at 4.04% which was substantially lower than that of the immediately preceding year. On being…

Deccan Jewellers Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.140/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-2018) M/S Deccan Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of K.B.N.Complex Income Tax (Central) D.No.27-16-65 Visakhapatnam Governorpet Vijayawada [Pan : Aaccd1524H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shrim.V.Prasad.Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Dr 22.09.2020 सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

…das Jajoo Vs. CIT (2006) 154 Taxmann 101 (MP) ii) Ramanlal Kacharulal Tejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on excess stock required to be brought to tax @60% and quantified the excess stock at Rs.4,91,13,985/- as under : “8.6. Having held that the unexplained stock would have to taxe…

Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Viskhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.139/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Deccan Tobacco Company Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax D.No.5-7-6-1/5, Brodipet (Central) Guntur Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aahfd1174H]

…A.Y.2017-18 M/s Deccan Tobacco Company, Guntur ii) RamanlalKacharulalTejmal Vs. CIT (1994) 146 ITR 368 (Bom) iii) B.T.Steel Ltd., Vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 471 iv) Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT (2001) 247 ITR 290 (Guj) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 – value of unexplained investment (stock) assessable to Income Tax u/s 69 2.2. Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT revised the assessment order, directing the AO to tax the income @60% on excess stock of Rs.7,60,53,000/- u/s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued tha…

M/S Venkatesh Marbles, Raipur(Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

…ct, 1961 and needs to be assessed u/s 69 of the Act, as such was not to be considered while computing the remuneration to partners. The Assessing Officer relied upon the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court decision in case of Dhanush General Stores vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651. Thus, as per Section 40(b)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the amount of remuneration to partner of Rs.1,26,034/- was allowed by the Assessing Officer and excess claim of Rs.3,53,966/- was disallowed. Thus, the Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) by making following addition/disallowance:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Addition for alle…