Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT

339 ITR 651High Court2011#6076 most cited

What is Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Surrendered income found during a survey that is otherwise considered 'valuable' or 'ordinary articles' should be treated as deemed income under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if a different provision was initially applied in the assessment order.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Suncity Alloys v ACIT · 339 ITR 651 · Section 69 · Section 69B · unexplained stock · deemed income · survey income · valuable articles · ordinary articles · Chhattisgarh HC

Judgments citing 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

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

…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

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

…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

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

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

Section 260A

…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…

SAITAWADEKAR JEWELLERS ,CHIPLUN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE 1, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 870/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.870/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saitawadekarjewellers, The Pr.Cit, Pune-1. 1825, B2 Padma Talkies Bldg, Vs Opp.Urban Bank Bazar Peth, Chiplun – 415605. Pan : - Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena,Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assesseeisdirected Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1Dated 22.11.2022Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 27.11.2017Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pcit In His Order U/S 263, While Giving Effect To The Order Dtd.31.05.2022 Of The Honorable Itat, Erred In Making The Following Additions To The Income Determined Vide Assessment Order Saitawadekar Jewellers [A]

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 69

…survey is to be taxed under section 69/69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and it would be in addition to the regular income of the assessee as is held in the following cases:- 1. Vimla Stores vs CIT (2009) 308 ITR 89 (Pat) 2. Dhanush General Stores vs CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (CG) 3. Fakir Mohd Haji Hasan vs CIT, 249 ITR 290 (Guj) In view of the law laid down in these cases, the amount of excess stock found during the survey viz. Rs. 30,01,449/- is to be added back in the assessee’s regular income. …..The tax on this amount is to be computed u/s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee has made purchases to…

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

ITA 30/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…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…

GOOD WILL IMPEX LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR-2

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 209/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Good Will Impex Limited Principal Commissioner of Vs. G-1/95-96 G-1/95-96, Sitapura Industrial Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Area, Sanganer, Jaipur-302022. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG 5831 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by :…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. S VALAMATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Adv
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…nd no deduction is permissible against the income offered under this head. This view is upheld by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan vs. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 290 and the Chattisgarh High court in Dhanush General Stores vs. CIT [2011] 339 ITR 651. Hence this amount of Rs.2,46,66,430/- is added as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Since the addition is u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961 Section 115BBE comes into play and the said amount is taxed accordingly. " 13. The Assessing Officer also added Rs.61,27, 745/- as business income (being the difference between the excess s…

DECCAN JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2020[10000]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020

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

For Appellant: ShriM.V.Prasad.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 69

…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

ITA 139/VIZ/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

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]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 263Section 69

…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…

SAJJAN KUMAR AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…Officer could examine if section 69 was not applicable and whether the addition could be made under any other provisions of the Act. To the similar effect is the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Chhatrisgarh in the case Dhanush General Stores –vs.- CIT [339 ITR 651], wherein it was held that on the basis of the wrong provision applied in the assessment order, the surrendered income cannot be held to be not an income. Keeping in view the ratio of these judicial pronouncements and considering that the issue relating to the addition made on account of income surrendered by the assessee during the course of sea…

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

ITA 4/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 133ASection 40Section 44ASection 69

…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…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1811/PUN/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1810/PUN/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1809/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1808/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1807/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1806/PUN/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

ITA 1805/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

For Appellant: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CITFor Respondent: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /
Section 119(2)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…) 34 SOT 348 (Del) ii) CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) iii) Sarla Handicrafts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2008) 296 ITR 94 (P&H) iv) Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 674 (JD) v) Dhanush General Stores Vs. CIT (2011) 339 ITR 651 (Chhattisgarh) vi) Shri Gajendra D. Pawar Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.1009 to 1012/PUN/2015, relating to assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, order dated 31.10.2017 11. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in reply, pointed out that the assessee was engaged in development of infrastructure facilities. During the course of search on 25.…

ITO 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ATUL PRAVINCHANDRA PAREKH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1344/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Ito-15(3)(1), Shri Atul Pravinchandra Room No.106, Parekh बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, 303, Shobha Apartment, 3Rd Vs. Tardeo Road, Floor, S.No. Road, Mumbai-400007 Tambe Nagar, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Ambpp5491R

Section 143(1)Section 69B

…urana vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 344 (Raj.), Hindustan Mills and Electric Stores 232 ITR 421 (MP), CIT vs Dinesh Jain; Lata Jain (2013) 352 ITR 629, CIT vs Wester Estates 209 ITR 343 (Cal.), CIT vs Bajranglal Bansal 335 ITR 572 (Del.), Dhanush General Store vs CIT 339 ITR 651 (Chhatisgarh), CIT 8 Shri Atul Pravinchandra Prakash vs Sadhna Gupta (2013) 352 ITR 595 (Del.), CIT vs Fair Deal Textile Park Ltd. (2014) 362 ITR 497 (Guj.) and CIT vs Veerdip Rollers Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 341 (Guj.), supports our view. So far as, primary burden of proof to prove under statement or concealment of income is on the Revenue and…

Suncity Alloys (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (339 ITR 651) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax