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 367,181 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

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Realistic Realitors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 684/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Mayan K. Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurmel Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 37

…s-examine the statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal, therefore, such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC). There is no other finding given by the A.O. for making disallowance against the assessee. Thus, whatever documentary evidence was produced by the assessee before A.O. have not been doubted by the A.O. and no enquiry on the same have conducted by the A.O. Thus, its stand established that assessee being engaged in business of real estate has…

Met Pro Chemicals, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1511/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 35ASection 3S

…ITA No. 1511/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Page 1 of 4 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P.P Bhatt (President)] and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] Assessment Year: 2010-11 Met Pro Chemicals …………………….. Appellant 208, Alankar Building, Samuel Street, Masjid Bander, Mumbai 400003 [PAN: AABFM0950E] Vs. Income Tax Officer 17 (2)(5) Mumbai. …………………….. Respondent Appearances: Manoj Pandit for the appellant Bharat Andhdle for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : December 24, 2021 Date of pronouncement : March 03, 2021 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. This appea…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2105/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2104/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2103/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2102/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2101/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Similarly, no statement of assessee…

Chetna Suresh Gada, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3948/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3948 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Chetna Suresh Gada, 1103/1104, Gagangiri Tower, Dr.Deshmukh Lane, Opp. Vp Road, Mumbai 400 004 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Aabpg8894P बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं. 3948 /मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Chetna Suresh Gada, 1103/1104, Gagangiri Tower, Dr.Deshmukh Lane, Opp. VP Road, Mumbai 400 004 : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant PAN: AABPG8894P बनाम/ Vs. Income Tax Officer 18(1)(3), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue by : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/12/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22 /02/2021 Date of Pronou…

Trn Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 7991/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…right of cross-examination have been granted to assessee to such statements. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishan 8 ITA.No.7991/Del./2019 TRN Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Chand Chellaram (supra) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., SMC Share Broker Ltd., (supra). In view of the above, it is clear that right of assessee have been denied by the authorities below in not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the statements of Shri Deepak Agarwal and Shri Mukesh Kumar. Thus, these statements recorded at the b…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3870/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Madhu Apartment The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, B-29, P-1, vs. Ward – 16 (1), Ashok Vihar, Delhi-052. PAN New Delhi. AAACM0148E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed again…

Madhu Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3869/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-1” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.3869 & 3870/Del./2018 Assessment Years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 M/s. Madhu Apartment The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, B-29, P-1, vs. Ward – 16 (1), Ashok Vihar, Delhi-052. PAN New Delhi. AAACM0148E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suresh K. Gupta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Prakash Dubey , Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 01.02.2021 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee has been directed again…

Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…RB) Vs. Settlement Commission (1989) 176 169, 174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity which is further supported from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE Vs. Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241 held that assessment based on statement without giving an opportunity to cross examine him is not sustainable in law. Now it is settled law that by obtaining statements from the third person(s) cannot and should not be the only basis to reopen the case of assessee unless some other positive material or corroborative evidence is available on reco…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.05 & 06/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri NishantKantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMEPP2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt MuktabenNishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/h Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old NH No.8, GIDC, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BIN…

Shri Badresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-1, Kalyan

ITA 5544/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5544/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit-Circle-1, Shri Bhadresh Mansukhlal Dodhia, Kalyan, Pin- H. No. 69/100, Dodhia बिधम/ House, Narpoli, New Mavji Vs. Compound, B/H Ratan Talkies, Bhiwandi, Thane-421302 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Afhjpd2871E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)

…d the cross examine of Shri Anil Agarwal on whose statement the AO has based his assessment order and made addition on account of bogus long term capital gain. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. Andaman timber Industries 127 DTR 241. The addition made by the AO is not sustainable. The ld. AR has submitted that the assessee was allotted 3,50,000/- equity shares by M/s Rutron International Ltd. on 01.03.2012 vide allotment letter dated 08.03.2012. The shares were allotted by the company at face value of Rs. 10/- each without charging any premium under preferential issue. He ha…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…not allowing cross examination of parties on whose statements assessing officer is relying and not following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) wherein it has been clearly held by Apex court that relying on statement recorded on the back of the assessee without allowing cross examination is invalid.- NIL 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not examining and giving any finding on various latest case laws of ITAT and High Court relied on which are on sim…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…not allowing cross examination of parties on whose statements assessing officer is relying and not following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) wherein it has been clearly held by Apex court that relying on statement recorded on the back of the assessee without allowing cross examination is invalid.- NIL 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not examining and giving any finding on various latest case laws of ITAT and High Court relied on which are on sim…

Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4257/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC-II” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4257/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Maheshwari Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The Income Tax Officer, PAN AAACM1075C [vs. C/o. Raj Kumar & Ward – 16 (1), Associates, CA, L-7A (LGF), South Extn. Part-II, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Raj Kumar, C.A. Shri Sumit Goel, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Prakash Duby, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.12.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2020 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAI…