Venu Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahd-Trib) (Mag) ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

38 SOT 486Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#15749 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 48Section 54Section 69Section 69A

Judgments citing Venu Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahd-Trib) (Mag) ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…ents in Term Deposits for Rs.20.00 Lac during the year, for which a Certificate from the Bank has also been submitted. Case Law Reference: ITO v/s Venu Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahd-Trib) (Mag) ITO v/s Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd), :-3-: ITA. Nos:1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 5. Incorrect Valuation Basis: The valuation of property was allegedly incorrect, applying the stamp duty valuation from the date o registration rather than the date of agreement, which the appellant argues should have been used for assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case Law Reference: DCIT /s…

Madanraj Hamirmal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO, Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Madanraj Hamirmal Shah Income Tax Officer, C-405, Royal Samrat, Ward -1(2), S.V. Road,Goregoan West, V. Erode. Mumbai – 400 062. [Pan: Adwpm-2343-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate & Shri. Mohit Bangani, Advocate ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. P. Vijaideepan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri. P.C. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Vijaideepan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148

…ents in Term Deposits for Rs.20.00 Lac during the year, for which a Certificate from the Bank has also been submitted. Case Law Reference: ITO v/s Venu Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahd-Trib) (Mag) ITO v/s Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd), :-3-: ITA. Nos:1334 & 1335/Chny/2024 5. Incorrect Valuation Basis: The valuation of property was allegedly incorrect, applying the stamp duty valuation from the date o registration rather than the date of agreement, which the appellant argues should have been used for assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Case Law Reference: DCIT /s…

The DCIT Circle -2, Indore vs. M/S Aadya Herbals and Organics, Indore

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

ITA 726/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rawka &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR
Section 43CSection 56(2)(vii)

…Certain other case laws which also support this propositions are:- - CIT v/s K K Enterprises 13 DTR (Raj) 289 - ITO vs Satyanarayan Aggarwal 112 TTJ (jd) 717 - Kamal Kishore Chandok vs ITO 103 TTJ (Jd) 843 - ITO vs. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd) In view of above discussion and case laws discussed above, ld. AO was not at all justified in adopting the value determined by Stamp Valuation Authority as actual consideration paid as purchase cost without brining any tangible or positive material on record, action of A.O. is held not to be sustainable on facts and in law. Hence, addition…

DCIT Central 2, Indore vs. M/S Gautamswami Enterprises, Indore

ITA 805/IND/2018[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Aug 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2012-13

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ositions are:- • CIT v/s K K Enterprises 13 DTR (Raj) 289 • ITO v/s Satyanarayan Agarwal 112 TT J (Jd) 717 • Kamal Kishore Chandok v/s ITO 103 DJ (Jd) 843 • JaiMarwar co. Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT 79 TT J (Jd) 178 • ITO vis Harley Street pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd) Conclusion:. In view of the remand report submitted by the A.O it is very unambiguous that "double addition" has been made on account of photocopies of original registries, thus addition made on account of difference in sale consideration and market value with respect to duplicate/double addition to the tune of Rs.4,91,28,000/- is hereby o…

DCIT Circle-1, Ranchi vs. Shri Anup Chawla, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi22 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)Section 69B

…account books, then only the addition u/s. 69B can be made. The burden is on the Revenue to prove that real investment exceeds the investment shown in account books of the assessee”. Page4 [5.7] In the case of ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2010] 38 SOT 486 (hd) it has been held that provisions of Sec.50C A.Y 2012-13 Shri Anup Chawla are applicable only for computation of capital gains in real estate transaction in respect of seller only and not for the purchaser. [5.8] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the, case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 has held that the onus of establishing that the c…

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunil Ghanshyamdas Verliani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3813/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Ashwani Taneja, Am Income Tax Officer Shri Sunil Ghanshyamdas 14(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Earnest Verliani House, Nariman Point, Mumbai- C/O M/S Sunil Enterprise 138, Vs. 400021. Vitthalwadi, Opp. Vithoba Mandir, Mumbai-400002. Pan No.Aabpv3351J .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shri T.A Khan, Dr .. Assessee By Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 28-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 28-11-2016 O R D E R

Section 142ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 59BSection 69B

…apparent consideration and valuation done by stamp valuation authorities as undisclosed investment. This view of ours is supported by the decision of co-ordinate Bench of ITAT of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2010) 38 SOT 486 (Ahd). In view of 6 the above facts and circumstances and precedence cited above we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-11-2016. (ASHWANI TANEJA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 28-11-2016 Sudip Sarkar /Sr.PS C…

Venu Proteins Industries (2010) 195 Taxman 14 (Ahd-Trib) (Mag) ITO v. Harley Street Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (38 SOT 486) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax