Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11(5), Section 13(1)(c), Section 131, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 153A.

31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri

Q: How many judgments cite 31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite 31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri (26 ITR 1), spanning 2018 to 2024.

26 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1954#4486 most cited

What is 31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri authority for?

Assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings. The assessee has a right to inspect the record and all relevant documents before being called upon to lead evidence in rebuttal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Suraj Mall Mohta · assessment proceedings · judicial proceedings · right to inspect record · natural justice · fair hearing · Income Tax Act · rebuttal evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 131 Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 153A Section 153C Section 164(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)price rigging bogus ltcg bogus long term capital gain preponderance of probability circular trading penny stock revision u/s 263 section 10(38)section 234d section 34 violation of natural justice

Judgments citing 31. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri

Shri Nilesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 294/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Ayush Jain, : Appellant 132, Baikunthdham Colony, Behind Anand Bazar, Indore PAN : AHOPJ6426C V/s Income Tax Officer 4(2) Indore : Respondent ITA No.617/Ind/2019 & 293/Ind/2020 Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2014-15 Shri Pritesh Jain (HUF) : Appellant 130, Baikunthdham Colony, Behind Anand Bazar, Indore PAN : AAAHJ6285J V/s Income Tax Officer 4(2) Indore : Respondent Ayush Jain & Ors ITA No.616, 6…

Pritesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 293/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

Newbridge Business Centres Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12

ITA 1621/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Ramarao, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

…ore the assessing officer is quasi-judicial proceedings and hence, while acting in their quasi-judicial capacity, the income tax authorities have to adhere to the principles of natural justice. In Suraj Mall Mohta and Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri [1954] 26 ITR 1 (SC), the Supreme Court has held that the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and all the incidents of such judicial proceedings have to be observed before any conclusion is arrived at. 11. The principle of natural justice has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various other cases also. Failure…

M/S Newbridge Business Centres Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2011-12

ITA 1620/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Ramarao, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

…n filed by the assessee. Hence the addition is made without giving any opportunity and is against the principles of natural justice. In this regard the assessee relies on the decision of Supreme Court in Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V.Visvanatha Sastri & Anr - 26 ITR 1 (CLPB page 143). The perusal of the discussion by the AO does not bring out any fact that either there has been such purchases or any such payment. In fact the AO himself is confused and is in dilemma as to who has entered into such alleged transaction. The AO’s dilemma is visible in the conclusion drawn in para 3.12 page 35 of assessment order runn…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

…ed. The following case laws are relied upon in this regard: 1) Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt Ltd vs DCIT - ITA 653/Bang/2015 - ITAT Bangalore. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC. 3) Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V.Visvanatha Sastri & Anr - 26 ITR 1 – SC – CLPB page 143 4) PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC. Accordingly it is prayed that the addition on this ground also to be vacated. On the issue of section 10B deduction, it is seen that the impugned assessment year is a second year of establishment of the EOU unit, first year being AY 2004-05 and the deduction was allo…