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 153CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69Section 147Section 153ASection 148

Issues it is cited on

third party informationsection 65section 65bpreponderance of probabilitysection 131(1a)retracted statementsection 132(4a)on-moneysection 69bdumb documentsbogus ltcgstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Seema Agarwal, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 441/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshnival, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srikanth Reddy Y., DR
Section 132

…d and hence the re-assessment can be treated as void and cannot be enforced. 7. Case of Sri Gajanand Agarwal was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Ltd Vs. CCE(2015) 281 CTR 241(SC) and also the tax effect to file further appeal is below the monitory limit prescribed by the CBDT in Inst.No.21/2015 to file further appeal, no further appeal was preferred by the department. Since the facts of the case of the assessee are identical to the case of her husband Sri Gajanand Agarwal, learned CIT(A) followed the same and allowed…

ACIT, C.C-2(1), Kolkata. vs. Shalimar Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 550/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 550/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shalimar Nutrients Private Limited Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs 17Th Floor, Suite No. 17A, B & C Everest House 46/C, Chowringhee Road Middleton Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aapcs1419M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 20, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 1 Day In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…roduce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it asking for an opportunity to cross examine the manager of the bank with reference to the statements made by him…..” (iv) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (Hon’ble Supreme Court) (v) M/s R W Promotions (P) Ltd v. ACIT, Circle-9(3) in ITAT No. 1489 of 2013 (Hon’ble Bombay High Court) (vi) Heirs and LRs of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel v. CIR (2010) 327 ITR 290 (Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat) (vii) DCIT v. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR (Guj) 243 Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat 9 I.T.A. No. 550/Kol/2…

Savita Mercantiles Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.168/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Savita Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Ito-3(3)(2) 83, A Wing, Mittal Tower, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Karve Road, New Marine 400021. Lines, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs9614G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Viraj Mehta Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 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 03.01.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.45,00,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Receipt Of Share Application Money Only On The Basis Of Statement Given By Shri Pravin Kumar Jain.

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 183(6)

…ssessee. Such a statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain could not have been relied upon by AO for making addition and for such a preposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it was held that not providing cross- examination of statement relied upon by assessing authority is a serious flaw which render the whole action a nullity. Same view was 7 A.Y. 2009-10 Savita Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd. reiterated in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…arwal, the said statement needs to be excluded and cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence to make any addition. On this point, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: "According to us, not allowing the assessee to crossexamine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the a…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

…arwal, the said statement needs to be excluded and cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence to make any addition. On this point, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: "According to us, not allowing the assessee to crossexamine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the a…

D V Properties Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-1(1)(1), Surat

ITA 519/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.519/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) D.V. Properties Pvt, Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 748-749 Golden Plaza Market, Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Pan No. Aaacd 8392 B Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.519/SRT/2023 (AY 2015-16) (Hearing in Physical Court) D.V. Properties Pvt, Ltd. Deputy Commissioner of 748-749 Golden Plaza Market, Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1) Vs Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. PAN No. AAACD 8392 B Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri Mehul Shah, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar Sr-DR अपील प…

The Hamlet, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…ITA No. 70/Bang/2023 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. PAN: AAAFT6690D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri H.N. Kincha, CA : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT - Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of the order dat…

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 87/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 DCIT, cuke Puja Synthetics Private Limited Vs. Central Circle, A-4, Bhilwara Textile Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara. Ajmer. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACP 8449 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by :Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.) jktLo dh v…

DCIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Chandumal Rohra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1920/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain/Pratik JainFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

…ial pronouncements Hon'ble Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court in in in case case case of of of Anadaman Anadaman Anadaman Timber Timber Timber industries industries industries vs. vs. vs. Commissioner of Central Ex Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as cise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under:- "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- -examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements witnesses by the Adjudicating Authorit…

DCIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Chandumal Rohra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1919/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain/Pratik JainFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

…ial pronouncements Hon'ble Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court in in in case case case of of of Anadaman Anadaman Anadaman Timber Timber Timber industries industries industries vs. vs. vs. Commissioner of Central Ex Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as cise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under:- "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- -examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements witnesses by the Adjudicating Authorit…

Principle Commissioner O Income Tax-42, Mumbai vs. Sunil Govind Agre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1615/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1615/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Pr. Commissioner Of बिधम/ Sunil Govind Agre Income Tax-42 Room No.21, Plot Vs. Ito-42(1)(5), Mumbai No.255, Sankalp Society, Room No.945, 9Th Floor, Sector-2, Charkop, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Kandivali, West, Bandra, East, Mumbai- Mumbai-400067. 400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aegpa0962H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Rakh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.03.2023 For The Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,63,62,790/- Which Was Added By The Ao Since The Assessee Failed To Prove The Purchases As Genuine. & Ld Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee By Restricting The Addition At Rs.4,99,264/- I.E. 0.31% Gross Profit (Gp) Of Rs.16,10,52,959/-.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Rakh (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…s maker of the statement (Nitin S. Shetty) of M/s. Urvin was allowed to be cross-examined by the assessee. In this context, it is gainful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that, “failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied 13 A.Y. 2011-12 Sunil Govind Agre upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity”. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Co…

T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…sessee has not been provided an opportunity of cross examination and hence, the principles of natural justice is violated. In this regard the assessee begs to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC), wherein it was held that any material collected at the back of assessee or statement recorded at the back of assessee cannot be used in evidence against the assessee, unless the same is confronted to the assessee at assessment proceedings and right of cross-examination have been granted to assessee to such statements. Therefore, additions m…

T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…sessee has not been provided an opportunity of cross examination and hence, the principles of natural justice is violated. In this regard the assessee begs to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC), wherein it was held that any material collected at the back of assessee or statement recorded at the back of assessee cannot be used in evidence against the assessee, unless the same is confronted to the assessee at assessment proceedings and right of cross-examination have been granted to assessee to such statements. Therefore, additions m…

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…sessee has not been provided an opportunity of cross examination and hence, the principles of natural justice is violated. In this regard the assessee begs to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC), wherein it was held that any material collected at the back of assessee or statement recorded at the back of assessee cannot be used in evidence against the assessee, unless the same is confronted to the assessee at assessment proceedings and right of cross-examination have been granted to assessee to such statements. Therefore, additions m…

DCIT-19(3), Mumbai vs. Renu Prakash Bijlani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue for AY 2011-12 is dismissed and the appeal filed for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 1645/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 68Section 69C

…n opportunity to cross-examine the maker of such statement on the basis of which the investigation report has been made. Therefore, such a statement cannot be used as evidence against the assessee to draw adverse view. [refer case of Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241) (SC)] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the assessment based on third party statement without giving an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the maker of adverse statement is not sustainable in law. Thus, anyway the investigation report based on third party statement cannot be the basis to draw adverse inference against the…

M/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 1241/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., V. Cit (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 Pan: Aadcp7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Portfolio Fashions Pvt. Ltd., v. CIT (A) 5A, Jindal Mansion Delhi Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg Mumbai - 400026 PAN: AADCP7858D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Hiro Rai Department Represented by : Shri H.M. Bhatt Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 04.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 25.10.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE 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 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 59/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 1st Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 58/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 1st Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No…

DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi vs. Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 57/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 ITA No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 ITA No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 ITA No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, 1st Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No…