1987) 167 Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal

167 ITR 488Supreme Court of India1987#15044 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 143(2)Section 1961Section 250Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

escapement of incomereason to believeaccommodation entrysection 151section 131genuineness of the transactionunexplained cash creditnotice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 69section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing 1987) 167 Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ing nexus between the appellant, its broker and alleged entry- providers—mere reliance on third-party statements, not confronted to the assessee, violates natural-justice principles crystallised in Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713(SC) and Kalra Glass Factory 167 ITR 488;2.the comparative price chart reproduced in the order is at best an inference of volatility, insufficient to dislodge documented trades executed on the exchange; 3. the Investigation-Wing report is generic and no effort was made to verify the appellant’s transactions, contrary to judicial mandates that suspicion cannot substitute proof; and 4. th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2541/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2541 & 2542/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-1(2), Kolkata…………..…....…………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. M/S Amluckie Investment Company Ltd.……………….....……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, 10 Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. [Pan: Aacca6749H] Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kr. Pati, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 12, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Present Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Both Dated 21.07.2025 Of The Cit(A)-20, Kolkata Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Years 2013–14 2015-16 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee & Arisen From Same Appellate Order, Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & We Are Going To Dispose Of These Appeals By Passing A Consolidated Order. 2. Both The Appeal Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 35 Days & The Revenue Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of The Delays. After Going Over The Said Petitions, We Find Sufficient Reasons Behind Such Delays & Consequently, The Delays In Filing Both The Appeal Are Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeals On Merits.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ing nexus between the appellant, its broker and alleged entry- providers—mere reliance on third-party statements, not confronted to the assessee, violates natural-justice principles crystallised in Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713(SC) and Kalra Glass Factory 167 ITR 488;2.the comparative price chart reproduced in the order is at best an inference of volatility, insufficient to dislodge documented trades executed on the exchange; 3. the Investigation-Wing report is generic and no effort was made to verify the appellant’s transactions, contrary to judicial mandates that suspicion cannot substitute proof; and 4. th…

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

…e made based on such document in the hands of the assessee. of the assessee. Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory vs Sales Tax Tribunal (1987) Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory vs Sales Tax Tribunal (1987) Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory vs Sales Tax Tribunal (1987) 167 ITR 488 the Supreme Court held that it is an elementary 167 ITR 488 the Supreme Court held that it is an elementary 167 ITR 488 the Supreme Court held that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that the assessee should have principle of natural justice that the assessee should have principle of natural justice that the assessee should have kno…

Gipskarton India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi

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

ITA 1475/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…orded at the back of the assessee without giving him an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the same which is in violation of natural justice and has relied on the following decisions: (i) Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 [SC] (ii) Kalra Glass Factory 167 ITR 488 [SC] (iii) Best Infrastructure Pvt Ltd ITA No. 11-22/2017 dt 01.08.2018 Hon'ble Delhi High Court (vi) Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd 238 ITR 177 [AP] (vii) Fire Arcor Infrastructure ITA No. 30 of 2018 dt 23.07.2019 (viii) Sunita Dhadda ITA No. 751/JP/2011 ITAT Jaipur (ix) Laxman Bhai S. Patel 327 ITR 291 21. We find that this legal ground b…

ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)

…erious flaw which renders the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalra Glass Factory vs. Sales Tax Tribunal 167 ITR 488 of 1987 has held that the elementary principle of natural justice as applied to Income Tax proceedings, is that the assessee should have the knowledge of the material that is going to be based against him so that he may be able to meet it where for instance the statement of a person is recorded behind the back of the assessee, but not tested by c…

Jagmohan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 604/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…nts adverse to him, which were recorded behind the back of the assessee and which were relied upon before taking any adverse view against the assessee:- 6. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the case of KALRA GLASS FACTORY VS SALES TAX TRIBUNAL – SUPREME COURT 167 ITR 488 OF 1987 wherein it has been held that the elementary principle of natural justice as applied to Income Tax proceedings, is that the assessee should have the knowledge of the material that is going to be based against him so that he may be able to meet it where for instance the statement of a person is recorded behind the back of the assessee, but…

1987) 167 Finally, in Kalra Glass Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal (167 ITR 488) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax