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.

138 results for “section 68”+ Section 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,286Mumbai2,261Bangalore745Chennai576Karnataka572Ahmedabad521Kolkata471Jaipur457Hyderabad359Chandigarh275Indore269Pune225Surat138Cochin121Raipur94Visakhapatnam88Cuttack87Rajkot76Telangana73Nagpur59Calcutta59Lucknow58Allahabad44Amritsar40Panaji35Agra33Guwahati32Patna31SC27Jodhpur24Ranchi19Jabalpur17Dehradun15Rajasthan8Varanasi8Orissa7Gauhati1Kerala1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income69Section 143(3)65Section 26349Section 6846Section 25030Survey u/s 133A24Section 14723Section 14323Section 14822Disallowance

SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act was brought w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14 and is not retrospective as held by Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 1613 of 2014] (Mum HC) and PCIT vs. Apeak Infotech – [2017] 397 ITR 148 (Bombay) ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers

Showing 1–20 of 138 · Page 1 of 7

22
Section 69A20
Unexplained Cash Credit12

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 184/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 96

DAMODAR JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD.2(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 183/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 96

JASODADEVI RAJARAM JAJOO,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD.-2(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 185/SRT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.183 To 184/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Damodar Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(1), 429-432, Golden Point, Nr. Bsnl Surat. Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawpj4341H (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.185/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Jasodadevi Rajaram Jajoo, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(2)(2), 429-432, Golden Point, Ring Surat. Road, Falsawadi, Begampura, Surat-395002, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpj7257E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms Richa Tosniwal, Ca & Shri Harishankar Tosniwal, Ca Shri J. K. Chandnani, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 21/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2022

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 96

SUNITA JAJOO,SURAT vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

Section 68. With respect, it appears to us that there has only been a mechanical reference to the case-law on the subject without any serious appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case. 96

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), SURAT vs. J B SYNTEX PVT. LTD, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Hon'ble High Court held the Tribunal has considered each and every finding recorded by the assessing officer as well as the CIT(A), Ahmedabad and it cannot be said that the points raised before the assessing officer, as well as the first appellate authority were not dealt with by the Tribunal. Since

SHRI VASANTBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL,,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9,, VAPI

In the result, ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2443/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing ) Nirmalaben Vasanthbhai Patel Vs Income Tax Officer, L/ H Of Vasanthbhai Patel, Ward No.-9, Wapi, Gujarat ‘Sneh’Desai Streat, At Post Office Salvav, Vapi, District Valsad, Gujarat. Email: Hardikvora.Ca@Gmail.Com Pan : Accpp2166L Appellant Respondednt Appellant By Sh. Hardik Vora Ar Advocate Respondent By Sh. O.P Meena Sr-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03 /09/2020 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memebr : 1. This Appeal By Assessing Is Directed Against The Order Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)], Valsad, Gujarat Dated 23Rd August 2016, Which Arises From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Read With Section 147 Income Tax Act Dated 12Th March 2015 For Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal; (I) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As On The Subject The Assessing Officer Has Erred In Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Act & Consequently Finalizing The Assessment Under Section 144 Rws 147 Of The Act. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Accepting Additional Evidences Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules.

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 68. The ld AR further submits that the assessee ultimately died on 10.08.2017, copy of the death certificate is filed on record. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has filed the copy of the evidences filed before ld CIT(A) and prayed that the additional evidences may be allowed and the matter

SHRI BALAJI J BHAGNURE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly in above terms

ITA 250/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.250/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Balaji J. Bhagnure Income Tax Officer, 98, Santkrupa Society, In Ward-2(3)(1) Aayakar Vs Lane Of Mahadev Mandir, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Godadara Devadh Road, Surat-395001 Godadara, Surat-394210 Pan No: Alkpb 8794 M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.12.2022 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 27.12.2022 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [For Short To As “Nfac/ Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 26.07.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 11.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening Assessment By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The I.T. Act 1961. Sh. Balaji J Bhagnure 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The I.T. Act.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

96,441/- on which TDS was made @ 10% under section 194C. The receipt is nominal and the income of assessee was below taxable limit. Thus, the issuance of notice under section 148 was not valid. 4. For non-compliance of notice of Assessing Officer, the assessee explained that assessee (he) is a small person and is not well

M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

68 of the Act, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash found belonged

DY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2, SURAT vs. M/S. PATEL MADHAVLAL MAGANLAL & CO., SURAT

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

68 of the Act, the addition is unlawful and may be deleted. 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee noted that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not considered (dealt upon) the submission made by assessee regarding source of cash found at Mumbai Central Railway station. The assessee claimed that the cash found belonged

VASUDEV RAMPRASAD BHATTAR (HUF),SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT - 1, SURAT

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

ITA 1/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Court Hearing) Vasudev Ramprasad Bhattar Vs The Principal Commissioner Of (Huf), Income Tax -1, 2010-11, Vaibhav Apartment, Surat. Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Pan : Aafhv9911C Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

96,370/-, was credited in his account. When no such profit was credited in the books of account, hence, there is no question of addition under Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

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

ITA 502/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate

68,292/– as unexplained investment under section 69 of the as unexplained investment under section 69 of the as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made an addition of 100% of the purchases so found to be Act and made

MS. SHILPA MAYANK PARIKH,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

Section 68Section 69

section 69 of the Act, hence the addition made of Rs.4,96,500/- by the AO u/s.68 as confirming by the CIT(A) u/s.69 requires to be deleted holding that it is genuine bonafide and supported by documentary evidence. Since, the above 3 to 5 grounds are inter-connected, hence same 4. are being considered together. Brief facts

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 146/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

96,00,309/-. The Ld. AO called for the details and the assessee furnished the names, address etc. of creditors. The Ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to about 49 out of 242 creditors totaling to Rs.83,48,091/- , however in all the cases, the notices were returned unserved. Hence the AO concluded that, all the trade creditors

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 155/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

96,00,309/-. The Ld. AO called for the details and the assessee furnished the names, address etc. of creditors. The Ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to about 49 out of 242 creditors totaling to Rs.83,48,091/- , however in all the cases, the notices were returned unserved. Hence the AO concluded that, all the trade creditors

ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT vs. SHRI UMESH P BANSAL, SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 154/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

96,00,309/-. The Ld. AO called for the details and the assessee furnished the names, address etc. of creditors. The Ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to about 49 out of 242 creditors totaling to Rs.83,48,091/- , however in all the cases, the notices were returned unserved. Hence the AO concluded that, all the trade creditors

UMESHKUMAR P BANSAL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-2(2)(4), SURAT

In the result, ground No.1 raised by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 145/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

96,00,309/-. The Ld. AO called for the details and the assessee furnished the names, address etc. of creditors. The Ld. AO issued notices u/s 133(6) to about 49 out of 242 creditors totaling to Rs.83,48,091/- , however in all the cases, the notices were returned unserved. Hence the AO concluded that, all the trade creditors

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 286/SRT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income declared by the assesses is unrecorded stock of diamond found during the course of search. The assessee is in the business of diamond trade and such stock was part of the business affair of the company. Therefore, since income declared is in the nature of business income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI, VAPI vs. POONAM DEVELOPERS LLP, DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI (UT)

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 319/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income declared by the assesses is unrecorded stock of diamond found during the course of search. The assessee is in the business of diamond trade and such stock was part of the business affair of the company. Therefore, since income declared is in the nature of business income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, VAPI vs. M/S. M POONAM DEVELOPERS, VALSAD

In the result, these Cross-Objections Nos

ITA 285/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D of the Act. The income declared by the assesses is unrecorded stock of diamond found during the course of search. The assessee is in the business of diamond trade and such stock was part of the business affair of the company. Therefore, since income declared is in the nature of business income