How many judgments cite Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE?

1,335 judgments on BharatTax cite Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 69, Section 147.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

281 CTR 241Supreme Court of India2015#32 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE authority for?

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

1,335

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Andaman Timber Industries · cross-examination · third party information · principles of natural justice · adverse inference · retraction of statement · section 132(4) · section 143(3) · nullity of order · denial of cross-examination

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 3127 DTR 241324 ELT 6412015 SCC OnLine SC 1051

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153C Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 69 Section 147 Section 153A Section 148

Issues it is cited on

third party information section 65 section 65b preponderance of probability section 131(1a)retracted statement section 132(4a)on-money section 69b dumb documents bogus ltcg statement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…mpugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee…. • For this purpose reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of KishanchandChellaram 185 ITR 713 wherein it was held that the department is bound to give the Assessee an opportunity to controvert evidence and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. A failure in providing the same can result in the order being a nullity. The Bomba…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

Sh. Vibhav Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 355/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 10(36)Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…and without providing any opportunity for 'cross examination of such persons' despite specific request, hence the said addition is totally uncalled for and against the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgments as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made in the hands of assesse…

Rajat Diwaker Individual, Bhopal vs. I.T.O. 2(2), Bhopal

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

ITA 369/IND/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajat Diwakar Ito-2(2) B-266, Shahpur Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adqpd9074N Assessee By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajat Diwakar ITO-2(2) B-266, Shahpur Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ADQPD9074N Assessee by Shri Vinod Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2024 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 28.…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…ion. Secondary evidences 65 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. The violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. • Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC) The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that denial to the assesse of the right to cross-examine the witness whose statement was made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which renders the order an nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice because of which the assesse was adversely affected. • C…

Udaykumar Prabhudas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 29(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 883/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudaykumar Prabhudas Shah V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 29(3)(1) Kautilya Bhavan 1601 Moksh Mahal Bandra Kurla Complex P.K. Road, Sarvodaynagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mulund, Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Alyps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Udaykumar Prabhudas Shah v. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 29(3)(1) Kautilya Bhavan 1601 Moksh Mahal Bandra Kurla Complex P.K. Road, Sarvodaynagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Mulund, Mumbai – 400080 PAN: ALYPS8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Dharan Gandhi Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This a…

JCIT (OSD) Central Cirlce-26, New Delhi vs. P L Computer & Communication Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 833/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 833/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 JCIT(OSD), Vs P L Computer & Communication Central Circle-26, Pvt. Ltd., 110, Kundan House-16, New Delhi-110055 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP4481B CO No. 195/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 P L Computer & Communication Vs JCIT(OSD), Pvt. Ltd., 110, Kundan House-16, Central Circle-26, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACP4481B Assessee by :…

Aakruti Ketan Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 53/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs. ITO, Ward-35(1)(1) 2501/2502, Ashok Tower Kautilya Bhavan Dr. S.S. Rao Road Bandra Kurla Complex Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.BAVPM3711N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pradip Kapasi Revenue by Shri A.S. Sant Date of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 02/12/2022 passed by ld. CIT(A)-57, Mu…

Sh. Bipan Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 354/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

…and without providing any opportunity for 'cross examination of such persons' despite specific request, hence the said addition is totally uncalled for and against the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made in the hands of assess…

Sh. Ashish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 353/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

…and without providing any opportunity for 'cross examination of such persons' despite specific request, hence the said addition is totally uncalled for and against the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made in the hands of assess…

Sh. Ashish Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 352/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

…and without providing any opportunity for 'cross examination of such persons' despite specific request, hence the said addition is totally uncalled for and against the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made in the hands of assess…

Sh. Akhil Jain, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-III, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground no

ITA 351/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 153A

…and without providing any opportunity for 'cross examination of such persons' despite specific request, hence the said addition is totally uncalled for and against the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 127 DTR 241 and other similar judgments. 6. That the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the number of judgements as having been cited before him for the above preposition and particularly the said long term capital gain having been disclosed in the original return filed much before the date of search and hence no addition could be made in the hands of assess…

Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta बिधम/ Ito-31(2)(4) 1501, Anmol Enclave, Opp Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C- Vs. Patel Auto, Goregaon West, 13, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400062. Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpg0969J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri Amit Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.08.2021 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) Claimed By The Assessee In Respect Of Sale Of Shares M/S. Sunrise Asian Limited (Hereafter “M/S. Sunrise”) Of Rs.98,81,550/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). & Thus Denying Deduction U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,97,631/- As Commission For Arranging The Bogus Ltcg (2% Of Commission) U/S 69C Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal/Shri AmitFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…ce nor AO allowed her to cross-examine them. Therefore, according to him, those statements even if incriminating cannot be used against the assessee unless cross-examined as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 16 A.Y. 2014-15 Mrs. Nisha Ashish Gupta (SC). Moreover, the Ld. AR pointed out that the statements of these persons would reveal that they have not made any allegation against the assessee or her broker of any misconduct or wrongdoing or being part of any illegal acts/modus-operandi to convert unaccounted money. This assertion of Ld. AR could no…

DCIT, CC-5(1), Mumbai vs. Hetal N. Shah (Leagal Heir of the Assessee Shri Nitin Rajmal Shah), Mumbai

In the result, we admit the appeal of the AO as it has been replaced by bringing the legal heir of deceased assessee on record but dismissed the appeal on the merits of the addition

ITA 1080/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Hetal Nitin Shah Dcit Legal Heir Of Nitin Rajmal Central Circle 5(1) Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Shah Air India Building, 301, Chandramani, Vs. Nariman Point, Hanuman Road, Mumbai-400 021 Vile Parle(E), Mumbai-400 057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadps5476M Assessee By : Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash Bairagra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…ive an opportunity to cross examine the same is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timbers industries (281 CTR 241). Further reliance was placed on the decision of other honourable High Court’s in 151 taxmann.com 486. The assessee further stated that that when the loan is repaid that no addition can be made under section 68 relying on the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of principal Commissioner of income tax versus Skylark build in ITA n…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Ritesh Jain, Indore

ITA 794/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & IT(SS)ANo.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12 ACIT, Circle -1 Ritesh Jain Indore 31, Jeevandeep Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ADSPJ6423H CO No.36/Ind/2019 (Arising out of ITANo.794/Ind/2018) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ritesh Jain ACIT, Circle -1 31, Jeevandeep Colony, Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ADSPJ6423H IT(SS)A No.07/Ind/2022 (Assessment Year: 2011…

M/S. Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2122/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…application money - On second appeal, Tribunal deleted said addition on ground 8 Trinity Global Enterprises Ltd. that share applicants were identified and revenue was at liberty to reopen assessment of all such bogus shareholders.” Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC) “Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross -examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, impugned order as passed by the Tribunal is set aside.” Pratik Suryakant Shah Vs. ITO in IT…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…e back of the assessee can not be used against the assessee to make addition as the same in in violation of principles of natural justice and has to be deleted. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on the decision of Andaman Timber Industries CCE(2015)281 CTR 241(SC) The ld A/R argued that the assessment by the Assessing Officer is purely based on conjectures and surmises sans any enquiry/investigation or substantive evidences and, therefore, cannot be sustained on this count alone. 7. The ld. A/R submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ord…

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…s the same in in violation of principles of natural justice and 6 I.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. has to be deleted. In defense of his arguments the ld AR relied on the decision of Andaman Timber Industries CCE(2015)281 CTR 241(SC) The ld AR argued that the assessment by the Assessing Officer is purely based on conjectures and surmises sans any enquiry/investigation or substantive evidences and, therefore, cannot be sustained on this count alone. 9. The ld. A/R submitted that the issue involved is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Co-ordi…

Vaibhav Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9855/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…d to him. It was also argued that, it is on record that Sh. Parul Ahluwalia and EktaSoni ever stated that the names recorded as Vaibhav Ji (capital) and Vaibhav Ji are of the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the judgment in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC). ITA Nos. 9854 & 9855/Del/2019 9 Vaibhav Jain 17. With regard to the additions made, the ld. AR submitted his explanation entry wise and argued that without prejudice since all the entries have been explained, no addition is called for. 18. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the order of the Assessing…

Vaibhav Jain, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9854/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69