How many judgments cite Teja Construction v. ACIT?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite Teja Construction v. ACIT (129 TTJ 57), spanning 2016 to 2023.

Teja Construction v. ACIT

129 TTJ 57Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4941 most cited

What is Teja Construction v. ACIT authority for?

Where the Assessing Officer rejects the books of accounts and estimates the income, no further addition can be made for irregularities, as this would amount to double taxation.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

Teja Construction v. ACIT · rejected books of accounts · estimation of income · further addition · double taxation · Section 40(a)(ia)

Also reported as

36 DTR 22033 Taxmann.com 563

Judgments citing Teja Construction v. ACIT

Time Ads & Publicity, Kochi vs. ACIT Circle 2(2), Kochi

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM & Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.226/Coch/2012: Asstt.Year:2008-2009 The Assistant Commissioner of Time Ads & Publicity Income-tax, Circle 2(2) 36/1724, Parammel House vs. Ernakulam. Shenoy Road, Kaloor Ernakulam – 680 017 [PAN: AACFT- 2946A] (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 27/Coch/2023: Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Time Ads & Publicity The Assistant Commissioner of 36/1724, Parammel House Income-tax, Circle 2(2) vs. Shenoy Road, Kaloor Ernakulam. Ernakulam – 680 017 [PAN: AACFT 2946A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Sa…

ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Time Ads & Publicity, Cochin

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 226/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40

ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur, Ward-7(2) vs. M/S. Silvex & Company G-1/35 to 37, 47, 48 Epip, Jewellery Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been held by Hon’ble Bench that once book results are rejected and ad hoc addition has been made applying G P rate , no separate addition u/s 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at t…

M/S. Silvex & Company India Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-7(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Shri Shri Nishant Jain, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 199/BIL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.199/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Nishant Jain, Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur(Cg) M/S Landmark Engineer, Flat No.27, Shantinagar, Ring Road No.2, Bilaspur Pan No. : Agepj 9793 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 40

…is proposition, we place reliance on following judicial pronouncements:- CIT Vs. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICE P. LTD. 38 TAXMANN.COM 77 (ALL), MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS Vs. ADDL. CIT 20 TAXMANN.COM 244 (VISAKHAPATNAM SPECIAL BENCH). TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. ACIT 129 TTJ 57 (HYDMUO), K. SRINIVAS NAIDU Vs. ACIT 131 TTJ 17 (HYDMUO) & JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. DCIT 123 TTJ 888 UP): Held that "If the assessee has paid the impugned amount and not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of s 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. It is only applicable in respect of "payable amount"…

M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Cuttack vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per the direction indicated above

ITA 404/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 M/S. B.Banamber & Co., M/S. B.Banamber & Co., Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar Cit, Bhubaneswar Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Bhairabi Sahi, Talcher. Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q Pan No.Aadfb 2121 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu S.N..Sahu & Somanath Sahu, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/ /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.N..Sahu, & Somanath SahuFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…For this proposition, ld A.R. has relied on the decision of Hon’ble A.P.High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs CIT, 232 ITR 776 (AP) and also the decision of the Tribunal P a g e 6 | 9 Assessment Year : 2009-2010 in the case of Teja Construction, 129 TTJ 57. Ld counsel pointed out that as per judgment reported in A Venkat Rao vs CIT, 203 ITR 64, the written reply in compliance to notice u/s.263 of the Act should have been judicially considered by the ld CIT and he is duty bound to examine the points raised and record definite conclusions in respect of each one of them. Since the CIT has not bothered…

Optart Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, Penalty appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 699/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 250Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) [Through Virtual Court] ITA. Nos: 699 & 2461/Ahd/2018 (Assessment Years: 2013-14) Optart Electronics Pvt. V/S ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ltd. 380/2, Nr. Sola Over Ahmedabad bridge B/H Ishwar Petrol Pump S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad PAN No. AAACO1836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 22-10-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 10 -11-2021 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, J.M. 1. These two…

The ITO, Ward-1, Na

In the result, this ground of appeal is rejected

ITA 1003/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2078/Ahd/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1003/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Amrutlal Chahwala, Ward-(1), Navsari. 102, Trimurti Complex, Vijalpore, Navsari. [Pan: Abnpc 6308 F] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ubmits that once the books of the accounts are rejected and the income of the assessee is estimated no further addition is sustainable. To support his contention the Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  Teja Construction Vs ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ 57 Hyd (URO),  CIT Vs Santosh Jain (2008) 266 ITR 324 ( P& H),  CIT Vs Banwari Lal Banshidhar (1998) 229 ITR 229 (All),  CIT Vs Bahubali N Muttin (2016) 388 ITR 608 (Kar),  Malpani House of stone Vs CIT (2017) 395 ITR 385 (Raj) and  Bipinchandra Hiralal Thakkar Vs ITO (2021) 187 ITD 477 (Surat-Trib) Anil Kumar A.Chahwala (AY 2006-07 & 2007-08) 2…

Tbpr Infra Projects Private Limited, Nirmal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2014/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Tbpr Infra Projects Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, # 205, Indraprastha Circle 2(2), Apartments, Hyderabad. Opp. Esi Hospital, Near Ag Colony Water Tank, Erragadda, Hyderabad. Pan Aacct 6542K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. FazalFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R)

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘ A ‘ BENCH, HYDERABAD. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Virtual Hearing) M/s. TBPR Infra Projects Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, # 205, Indraprastha Circle 2(2), Apartments, Hyderabad. Opp. ESI Hospital, Near AG Colony Water Tank, Erragadda, Hyderabad. PAN AACCT 6542K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Mohd. Fazal. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey (D.R) Date of Hearing : 25.03.2021. Date of Pronouncement :03.05.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This assessee’s…

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…income. Kindly refer CIT v/s Banwarilal Bansidhar 229 ITR 229 (All), Gupta Construction Co. v/s ACIT 84 TTJ (All) 46, ACIT VS. KPS Construction ITA No. 657/JU/2007 ITAT, Jodhpur. We further rely on the judgment in the case of Teja Construction v/s ACIT (2010)36 DTR 220 (ITAT), Hyderabad “A” Bench, where in it is held that the books of accounts of the appellant was not relied, and rejected by the AO. Based on the reliance on the same books, for the purpose of invoking the provision s of section 40(a)(ia) is improper. The estimation of income takes care of the irregularities committed by the appellant. Further add…

The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda vs. Iwi Cryogenic Vaporization System (I) Pvt. Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1508/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R

…lders Vs. ITO 43 TTJ 508 (Ahd.), the disallowance u/s. 40A (3) was found to be unjustified where income was estimated at a G.P. rate by rejecting the books of accounts of the assessee. 7. CIT vs. G.K.Contractor 19 DTR 305 (Raj.) 8. Teja Constructions Vs. ACIT 129 TTJ 57 (Hyd.) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that in a case where assessment is made by invoking the provisions of sec. 145, no further addition u/s. 40(a)(ia) could be made. 9. In this case, GP of the assessee has been estimated and out of these all expenses including depreciation have been allowed as deduction. And respectfully ITA No. 1508 & 159…

ITO 30(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmikant Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satishchandra Rajore, D.R

Section 194CSection 194ISection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO-30(2)(2), Shri Laxmikant Sharma, R. No.606, Solicitor Bunglow, C-13, 6th Floor, Quary Road, Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (E), Rani Sati Marg, Mumbai – 400 097 Opp. Ginni apt., Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097 PAN: ANRPS4379Q (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.151/M/2018 (ITA No.4102/M/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Laxmikant Sharma, ITO-30(2)(2), Solicitor Bunglow, Room No.606, Quary Road, 6th Floor, C-13, Rani Sati Marg, Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (E), Opp.…

Paton Fashion P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2411/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Paton Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Acit -10(3)(2) 10, Sagar Complex, M. G. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai-400057 Pan:Aadcp8002H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -10(3)(2) M/S Paton Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 10, Sagar Complex, M. G. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057 Pan:Aadcp8002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Mrs. Pooja Swaroop (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…stimation of income takes care of all the irregularities which allegedly committed by the assessee, therefore, no further addition is permissible. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while relying upon the decision of the Teja Construction Vs ACIT (2010) 36 DTR 220,wherein it was held that the estimation of income takes care of the irregularities committed by the assessee. Further addition amounts to double taxation which his not permissible under the law. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supports the orders of the Ld. Assessing Officer. 8. We have considered the submission of both the parties a…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Kreators, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

…ITA.No.5350 & 5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co M/s. Shankheshwar Kreators IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.5350/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co., Circle -3, 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 208, Om Supreme Building, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Near D-Mart, Vallipeer Road, Mumbai – 421 301 Kalyan (W), Mumbai - 421 301 PAN NO: ABCFS 6382 A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) Asst. Co…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Sai Shakti Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4266/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhsai Shakti Enterprises, Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Thane, First Floor, Vardhan Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Vs. Building, Midc, Wagle Industrial Mira Road, Thane-400604. Estate, Thane-401107 Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer, Sai Shakti Enterprises, Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Road No. 167, Thane (W) Mira Road,Thane. Pan: Aaxfs8506L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Virag H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sai Shakti Enterprises, Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Thane, first floor, Vardhan Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Vs. Building, MIDC, Wagle Industrial Mira Road, Thane-400604. Estate, Thane-401107 PAN: AAXFS8506L (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer, Sai Shakti Enterprises, Ashar I.T. Park, 6th Floor, Shop No. 2, Building No. B/4, Wagle Industrial Estate, Vs. Shanti Nagar, Sector 10, Road No. 167, Thane (W) Mira Road,Thane. PAN: AAXFS8506L (Appell…

Harbans Lal Sethi, Jaipur vs. Addl. CIT, Kota

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 495/JPR/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT-. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 244A

…ent both and the settled law Kindly refer CIT Vs. Jain 41 Shri Harbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota . Construction Co. and Others (1999) 156 CTR (Raj) 290, Rikhabdas Jain Contractor Vs. ITO (2001) 72 TTJ (Jd) 526, Teja Construction vs. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ 57 (Hyd)(UO), ITO Vs. Shri Ram Traders (2013) 90 DTR 217 (Jd.), in as much as to judge the reasonableness of the operating(trading) results, the indirect cost in the shape of interest, and depreciation should not be considered in as much as the same do not truly reflect the operating results having no nexus and keep on varying every year depending up…

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…on, the ld counsel for the assessee has relied upon the following case laws:- (i) Indwell Constructions v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 232 ITR 0776-[1998] (ii) 037 ITR 0369 Maddi Sudarsanam Oil Mills Co. v. CIT [Andhra Pradesh High Court] (iii) 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) (iv) 116 TTJ 289 ITO Vs. Kenaram Saha & Subhash Saha (Kol.) (v) 58 DTR 368 ITO vs. Sadhwani Brotehrs (Jp 'B') (vi) Singhal Builders Contractor v. Addl. CIT [2011] 12 Taxman.com 199 (Jp. ITAT) (vii) [2011] 007 ITR (Trib) 0183 Reliable Surface Coatings Vs. ACIT. 11. On the contrary, the ld Sr.DR has…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR

Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 446/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. The DCIT Vs. B-1, Trimurti Circle, Govind Marg Central Circle-2 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 6114 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 502/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke The DCIT M/s. Jadau…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Rutu Raja Rout, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by

ITA 216/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2009-2010 C.O.No.22/Ctk/2015 (Arising Out Of Ita No.216/Ctk/2015)

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR/Shri D.K.Pradhan

Section 194Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2009-2010 C.O.No.22/CTK/2015 (arising out of ITA No.216/CTK/2015) DCIT, Circle -5(1), Vs. Sri Rutu Raj Rout, 4706, Bhubaneswar. Shop No.BR-36, RCMC Market Complex, Press Chhak, Mancheswar Railway Colony, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. AHVPR 6568 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.R.Mohanty AR Revenue by : Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR/Shri D.K.Pradhan, JCIT, DR Date of Hearing : 16 /02/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /02/ 2017 O R D E R…