TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT

357 ITR 146High Court2013#294 most cited

What is TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer has not conducted any investigation and thus has not discharged their burden of proof, any addition made by the AO is unsustainable and must be deleted.

272

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT · Assessing Officer burden of proof · no investigation by AO · addition unsustainable · deletion of addition · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 14ASection 80ICSection 69BSection 132(1)Section 56(2)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 153a proceedingssection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 131(1a)live linkretracted statementsection 80ic

Judgments citing TM) Vishnu Jaiswal v. CIT

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 221/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…rounding circumstances. 9. Let us take into consideration observations made by the; Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P. Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon’ble Delhi High Court: made following observations: “……..This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of permanent account numbers, to…

Advent Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 220/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos. 220 & 221/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2014-2015 Advent Vinimay Private Limited,………..….Appellant 207, Maharishi Devendra Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aaica3094K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…….…………………….…Respondent Ward-9(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D.R. & Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…rounding circumstances. 9. Let us take into consideration observations made by the; Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P. Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon’ble Delhi High Court: made following observations: “……..This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of permanent account numbers, to…

Baba Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

ITA 925/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 249Section 253Section 254Section 263Section 3Section 5

…rrounding circumstances. 19. Let us take into consideration observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P. Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon'ble Delhi High Court made following observations: “..... This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Both these authorities primarily went by the fact that the assessee had provided sufficient indication by way of permanent account numbers, t…

Amarjit Kaur Surinder Singh Kochhar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-12(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

ITA 2513/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjit Kaur Surinder Vs. Ito Ward-12(1)(1), Singh Kochhar, Aayakar Bhawan, 4, Plot No.667, 4Th Floor M.K.Road, Satguru Sundari, Mumbai-400020. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Pan/Gir No. : Agspk6461F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: ShriManiJain&ShriPrateekJain.ARFor Respondent: Shri.G.J.Ninawe. Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69C

…ing counter evidence but has simply dismissed the assessee’s explanation simply on the basis of the said investigation report and the statement of Shri Harshvardhan Kayan. 6.7 The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Finvest Limited reported in 357 ITR 146 (Delhi) has held that when the assessee had filed documents including certified copies issued by the…

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO-17(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2170/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2170/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Naz Shazia बिधम/ The Income Tax Officer- Anwar House, Ground 17(2)(4) Vs. Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini 1St Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Bye Pass Road, Pandit M. K. Road, Mumbai- Nagla, Moradabad, Uttar 400020. Pradesh-244001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bbwps2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Fenil Bhatt Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 03.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,94,05,886/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Being The Amount Of Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) On Transfer Of Shares In M/S. Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. (Hereinafter “M/S. Esteem Bio”) Claimed As Exempt Income U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr
Section 10(38)Section 2Section 68

…h later than the date of transactions transacted and nowhere SEBI has declared the transaction transacted at earlier dates as void. 27. Our above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Fair Invest Limited reported in 357 ITR 146. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court of Delhi read as under:- "6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. In this case the discussion by the CIT(/4ppeals) would reveal that the assessee has filed documents including certified copies issued by the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Raipur vs. Mesers Aryan Builders and Developers Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed in terms of our observations

ITA 201/RPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Kumar Singhania, CA, &For Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(4)Section 68

…i Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 220 CTR (Raj.) 622 (ii) ACIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. (2000)73 1TD 125 (Del.) (iv) CIT v. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 0035 MM Securities Ltd. v. ACIT (2004) 1 SOT 452 (Hyd.) CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Del. HC) etc. 4. The fact of the present case was also discussed by the the brains behind these Hon’ble ITAT, New Delhi (A Bench) in the case of M/s companies and the Pee Aar Securities Ltd. Vs. DCIT- Circle-14(l), New documents with respect to Delhi in ITA No. 4978/Del/2014 for the AY 2005-06 their financials either. and it was held that "genuin…

Arihant Plantations Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 474/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s. Orissa Corporation reported in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC), decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of STL Extrusion P Ltd. [2010] 333 ITR 269 (Cal), decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gangeswari Metal P Ltd. in [2014] 361 ITR 10 (Del). The Ld. A.R therefore prayed before the Bench that the addition so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly 4 I.T.A. No.474/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arihant Plantations Pvt. Ltd. be deleted. Alternatively the ld. A.R contended that issue may be restored to the file of AO to examine whether the addition sustained are out of loans re…

Shri Naresh Navlani, Indore vs. The DCIT Central Circle -2 Indore, Indore

ITA 391/IND/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Shri Naresh Navlani, Dcit/Acit, 39, Sai Bagh Colony, (Central Circle)-2, बनाम/ Khandwa Road, Indore. Vs. Indore (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aazpn2242G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023

Section 143(3)Section 68

…, Bank A/c and PAN Card of the creditor, the AO has no right to draw any adverse inference against assessee and make addition. In support of his argument, Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 10 where it was held thus: “9. As can be seen from the above extract, two types of cases have been indicated. One in which the AO carries out the exercise which is required in law and the other in which the AO sits back with folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 399/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Natwarlal Daga v. CIT(A)-52 106, Sagar Shopping Centre Room No. 619 J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400058 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ADQPD0157Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2015-16, 2014-15 & 2012-13) DCIT – Central Circle – 4(3) v. M/s. Natwarlal Daga Air India Building Room No. 203, 2nd Floor Room No…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Natwarlal Daga v. CIT(A)-52 106, Sagar Shopping Centre Room No. 619 J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400058 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ADQPD0157Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2015-16, 2014-15 & 2012-13) DCIT – Central Circle – 4(3) v. M/s. Natwarlal Daga Air India Building Room No. 203, 2nd Floor Room No…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Natwarlal Daga v. CIT(A)-52 106, Sagar Shopping Centre Room No. 619 J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400058 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ADQPD0157Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2015-16, 2014-15 & 2012-13) DCIT – Central Circle – 4(3) v. M/s. Natwarlal Daga Air India Building Room No. 203, 2nd Floor Room No…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Natwarlal Daga v. CIT(A)-52 106, Sagar Shopping Centre Room No. 619 J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400058 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: ADQPD0157Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2013-14, 2015-16, 2014-15 & 2012-13) DCIT – Central Circle – 4(3) v. M/s. Natwarlal Daga Air India Building Room No. 203, 2nd Floor Room No…

Ace Build Tech, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Range-1, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9322/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Kanav Bali Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv
Section 68

…e onus had shifted on to the Assessing Officer or ld. CIT(A) to proof, if it disputed, the genuineness of loans extended to the assessee. He further submitted that as per judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ganeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. 361 ITR 10 (Del) when the assessing officer sits back with the folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then comes forward to merely reject the same on presumption, then such addition based on such presumptions is not sustainable. 4 8. On careful consideration of above submissions, synopsis of assessee and p…

Vachitra Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8148/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…shed all the material there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under section 68 of the Act: (i) CIT vs. Gangeshwari Metal (P) Ltd. [361 ITR 10 (Del)] (ii) CIT vs. Fair Finvest Ltd. [357 ITR 146 (Del)] (iii) CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 212/2012 dated 11.4.2012 (Del)] (iv) Funnay Time Finvest Ltd. [ITA No. 645/2012 dated 13.1.2015 (Del) (v) CIT vs. M/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. [361 ITR 220 (Del)] (vi) CIT vs. Vrindavan Farms (P) Ltd. [ITA No. 71/2015 dated 12.8.2015 (Del)]. 22. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Minimed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3585/MUM/2019[A.Y- 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…hed all the basic details explaining and evidencing its claims [Refer CIT v. ARL Infratech Ltd. - (2017) 394 ITR 383 (Rajasthan), CIT v. Jalan Hardcoke - (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 330 (Rajasthan)]. Likewise in the case of CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. - (2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi) it has been held that once the Assessee furnishes all the requisite details the AO cannot sit back with folded hands till the assessee exhausts all the evidence or material in his possession and then reject the claim of the Assessee on mere presumptions. In view of the law in this regard and considering the detailed evidences furnished by…

DCIT, CC-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. P & P Highrise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 493/KOL/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…rrounding circumstances. 10. Let us take into consideration observations made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Softline Creations P.Ltd. (supra) while taking note of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Fair Finvest Ltd., 357 ITR 146 (Delhi). Hon'ble Delhi High Court made following observations: "..... This court has considered the concurrent order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax 12 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 & C.O. No. 14/KOL/2022 (in ITA No. 493/KOL/2022) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 P & P Highrise Pvt. Limited Appellate Tribunal.…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Raipur vs. Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 236/RPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.236/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Ito-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.09/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.236/Rpr/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur Pan No. : Aeqpp 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G.S.Agrawal, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-I, Raipur, Dated 17.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection To The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. 2. The Revenue In Its Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds:- 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,35,21,935/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loan Without Appreciating The Facts On Record?” 2. “Whether Cit(A) Committed An Error In Law In Not Appreciating The Purport Of Provisions Of Sections 68 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 250(4)Section 68

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़विया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.236/RPR/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) ITO-3 (4), Raipur Vs Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Shop No.23, G.E.Road, Medical Complex, Raipur PAN No. : AEQPP 5835 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. AND Cross Objection No.09/RPR/2017 (Arising out of ITA No.236/RPR/2017) (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Shri Anil Kumar Panthi, Vs ACIT-4(1),…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind b…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind b…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant year. -CIT vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd (2013) 357 ITR 330 (Del). -CIT vs. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del). -Sarthak Securities Co, Pvt Ltd. 329 ITR 110 (Delhi) -Recently in case of Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited. v/s. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1) & Anr : [Writ Petition No. 3581 OF 2021; AY 2015- A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. 16; dt: 20/12/2021 (Bombay High Court)]. Held that Non application of mind b…