BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

40 results for “house property”+ Section 194Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai130Bangalore109Delhi87Ahmedabad40Kolkata37Chennai30Cochin22Karnataka22Raipur21Hyderabad16Rajkot13Indore13Jaipur11Cuttack10Amritsar10Nagpur9Chandigarh6Kerala5Lucknow5Surat4Pune3SC2Telangana2Rajasthan1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 80I109Section 143(2)39Disallowance35Section 143(3)24Addition to Income21Deduction21Section 43B17Depreciation11Section 143(1)9

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

property of the produce through the distributors. 3.4. On the other side, the appellant has submitted that it was mainly the exhibitor of the films by procuring from the distributors. Further it has also derived the monthly fixed charges income for facilitating small ITA Nos. 1808/Ahd/17 & 388/Ahd/18 [ITO vs. M/s. Eylex Films P. Ltd.] A.Ys

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

Section 142(1)9
Penalty9
Section 14A8

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1808/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

property of the produce through the distributors. 3.4. On the other side, the appellant has submitted that it was mainly the exhibitor of the films by procuring from the distributors. Further it has also derived the monthly fixed charges income for facilitating small ITA Nos. 1808/Ahd/17 & 388/Ahd/18 [ITO vs. M/s. Eylex Films P. Ltd.] A.Ys

THE ACIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2118/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining the projects and the risk of the appellant is not of the nature of entrepreneurial and investment and is limited

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2302/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining the projects and the risk of the appellant is not of the nature of entrepreneurial and investment and is limited

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1621/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining the projects and the risk of the appellant is not of the nature of entrepreneurial and investment and is limited

THE DY. CIT, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2303/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining the projects and the risk of the appellant is not of the nature of entrepreneurial and investment and is limited

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATAN CIRCLE,, PATAN vs. AJAY ENGG. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, UNJHA

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 1231/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year:2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ita Nos. 1621/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit, Patan Circle, Room No.104, Ajay Engineering Infrastructure 1St Floor, Santokba Hall, Rajmahal V. Pvt. Ltd., 98, Old Market Yard, Road, Patan-384265, Gujarat Unjha-384170 Gujarat Pan:Aagca8877L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Dcit, Patan Circle, Room M/S Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd., 59, No.101/4, 1St Floor, Chinmay V. Pratap Chambers 1St Floor, Near Corporate House, Patan-Deesa Railway Circle, Unjha-384170, Highway, Patan-384265,Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Aajca4095R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. Parin Shah, A.R. Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Sh. ParinFor Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

194C which proves that the assessee is a contractor and not owner of the projects and the appellant was 'not owner of the projects’. The AO has held that the company is neither developing or operating or maintaining the projects and the risk of the appellant is not of the nature of entrepreneurial and investment and is limited

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 914/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KHANDWALA INTEGRATED FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 932/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 643/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 786/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 1885/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 63/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3,, AHMEDABAD vs. KIFS SECURITIES LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2882/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 2717/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

house, depository services etc. From perusal of the balance sheets we find that the equity shares held by the assessee are categorized into two parts. Under the head “Investments” the equity shares for various companies are shown at “cost price” whereas under the head Inventories the equity shares held by the assessee as “stock in trade” valued at cost

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

194C of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 16.7 From the preceding discussion we note that all the details of the laborers including the addresses and PAN were available with the authorities below. In case there is any doubt about the labour expenses claimed by the assessee, then the authorities below should have taken the confirmation from

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

194C of the Act r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 16.7 From the preceding discussion we note that all the details of the laborers including the addresses and PAN were available with the authorities below. In case there is any doubt about the labour expenses claimed by the assessee, then the authorities below should have taken the confirmation from

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARVIND RETAIL LTD. ( SINCE MERGED WITH ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3669/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik R. Chokshi with Shri Biren Shah, ARs
Section 36(1)(xi)Section 40

194C of the Act. ii. Interest Expenses of Rs. 2,61,55,578/- to M/s Arvind Life Style Brand Limited (in short ALBL) under section 194A of the Act. iii. Interest Expenses of Rs. 2,32,890/- to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited (for short KMPL) under section 194A of the Act . 8.2. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the gross expenses

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1817/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

Section 28Section 36Section 37Section 40Section 43B

property on lease for a period of 3 years after making the deposit of the security amount say Rs. 1 lakh only. As per the arrangement between the assessee and the lessor, the assessee was to get the security deposit on termination of the lease period. Let us assume, the assessee was to get the refund of the security deposit

SHRI KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI BRAHAMBHATT,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NOW WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1990/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R
Section 194CSection 44ASection 56

section 139(9). But here the main issue arises is that as to whether the amount of Rs. 22,71,343/- was actually the gross turnover/gross receipts of the appellant on account of sub-contracting business with Rahul Road Lines. In order to prove this fact, the appellant was required to submit proper evidence and 6 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Brahmbhatt