TTJ 390 (Ahd.), Geetanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd.v. ACIT: (1991) 121 CTR (Trib) (Ahd.), and ITO v. Himalaya Drug Company

17 TTJ 9Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19476 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing TTJ 390 (Ahd.), Geetanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd.v. ACIT: (1991) 121 CTR (Trib) (Ahd.), and ITO v. Himalaya Drug Company

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: PendingITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

….-6021/Del/2012 36 Bansilal Abhirchand Spng & Wvng Mills v. CIT: 75 ITR 260 (Bom.), Surat District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 99 TTJ 390 (Ahd.), Geetanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd.v. ACIT: (1991) 121 CTR (Trib) (Ahd.), and ITO vs. Himalaya Drug Company : 17 TTJ 9 (Del.) Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of appellant by ITAT orders for assessment years 1999- 2000 to 2002-03, AY 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5.1. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld. DR that though AO held that while the system of accounting employed by the assessee is not being challenged, at the same time, it…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…of profit from alleged cash sales outside the books of accounts, without any supporting document, is illegal and bad in law, as has been held in the following decisions: " - CIT vs Sethia Plastic Industries: 206 CTR 484 (Del) - ITO vs. Himalaya Drug Company: 17 TTJ 9 (Del Tri.) Re (d): Protective Vs. Substantive assessment; " In the present case, the assessing officer made protective assessment, without any prior substantive addition/ assessment, which is erroneous, as has been held in the following decisions: - Lalji Haridas vs. ITO: 43 ITR 387 (SC) - ITO vs. Fussy Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.: ITA No. 4227 of…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…No.-6021/Del/2012 Bansilal Abhirchand Spng & Wvng Mills v. CIT: 75 ITR 260 (Bom.), Surat District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 99 TTJ 390 (Ahd.), Geetanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd.v. ACIT: (1991) 121 CTR (Trib) (Ahd.), and ITO vs. Himalaya Drug Company : 17 TTJ 9 (Del.) Ld. AR submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of appellant by ITAT orders for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03, AY 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 5.1. Per contra, it is the argument of the Ld. DR that though AO held that while the system of accounting employed by the assessee is not being challenged, at the same time, it i…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…484 (Del.)   R.B. Bansilal Abhirchand Spng & Wvng Mills v. CIT: 75 ITR 260 (Bom.) Surat District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd: 99 TTJ 390 (Ahd.)  Geetanjali Woollens Pvt.Ltd.v. ACIT: (1991) 121 CTR (Trib) (Ahd.)   ITO vs. Himalaya Drug Company : 17 TTJ 9 (Del.) In the assessment order, the assessing officer has accepted the system of accounting being followed by the assessee. However, the assessing officer held that the error in the accounting entry cannot be accepted even if there is insignificant variation. The assessing officer, as stated above, failed to appreciate that the consumption claimed r…