Vimal Chandra Golecha v. ITO & Anr.

124 ITR 203High Court1980#16577 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2022.

Judgments citing Vimal Chandra Golecha v. ITO & Anr.

Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

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

ITA 929/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…l so gathered was never confronted and hence such material i.e the so called comparable cases, could not be considered even. Kindly refer Vimal Chandra Golecha v/s ITO & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj.), ITO & Anr. v/s Gargidin Jawla Prasad Maholi & Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All). 3.2 Justifiable reason behind non-considering comparable case: The comparison so made with the G.P. declared three years later by a third party, is not a good basis for making addition. It is a matter of common knowledge that in three years the scenario has changed altogether. Therefore, the comparison made by the AO is arbitrary. The just…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…so gathered was never confronted and hence such material i.e. the so called comparable cases, could not be considered even. Kindly refer Vimal Chandra Golecha v/s ITO & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj.), ITO & Anr. v/s Gargidin Jawla Prasad Maholi & Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All). 4.2 Further when the assessee has its own past history and this is not the first year, then the assessee`s own past history is the best guide and there was no justification at all to rely to the comparable case. Kindly referAjay Goyal VS. ITO 99 TTJ 164 (JD), It was held that: “Accounts—Rejection—GP rate—Best guide for estimation of the tr…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ajmer

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

ITA 396/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

…talling to Rs.20.29 Cr. in a few days only. The law clearly prohibits the AO to use of material gathered at the back of assessee. Kindly referVimal Chandra Golecha v/s ITO &Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj.), ITO &Anr. v/s GargidinJwala Prasad Maholi& Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All). Hence any addition based on the basis of the material collected and not confronted to the appellant, has to be deleted altogether on this short ground alone. Also kindly refer Andaman Timber vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 / 127 DTR 241 (SC) (DPB 12-16), wherein it was held that “Conclusion: Not allowing Assessee to cross-examine witnesses by Ad…

Satbir Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 415/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F

…upon by the AO as was never confronted to the assessee and therefore, must be ignored being in violation of Sec.142(3). Also kindly refer Vimal Chandra Golecha v/s ITO & Anr. (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), ITO & Anr. v/s Gargidin Jawla Prasad Maholi & Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All), followed in Sunil Khan & Party ITA NO. 804/JP/03 dated 08.11.2005. Hence any addition based on the basis of such material collected and not confronted to the assessee, has to be deleted altogether on this short ground alone. Secondly, the measurement has been taken aerially which is incorrect hence, the same deserves to be ignored. 7. On…

Balwant Yadav, Jaipur vs. ITO, Alwar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F