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

Ss Techno Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM Sl. ITA No./Co.No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1 975/PUN/2018 Dinesh Rathi, DCIT, Circle 3, Pune 2009-10 (Prop. M/s. Elcon Instruments & Engineers), Office No.805, Pinnacle Brookside, 52/1A, Bavdhan Kh, Opp Sahgal Maruti Showroom, Mumbai Pune Highway, Pune – 411021 PAN: AAPPR5736F 2 12/PUN/2018 Adroit Enterprises, DCIT, Circle 1(2), 2011-12 S.No.6/2/1, Yogiraj Park Pune Colony, Asmita Bunglow, Karve Nagar, Pune-411052 PAN: AALFA1231E 3 563/PUN/2019 Thuse Elektronics Pvt.…

Sukhlal Sajan Patil, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM Sl. ITA No./Co.No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1 975/PUN/2018 Dinesh Rathi, DCIT, Circle 3, Pune 2009-10 (Prop. M/s. Elcon Instruments & Engineers), Office No.805, Pinnacle Brookside, 52/1A, Bavdhan Kh, Opp Sahgal Maruti Showroom, Mumbai Pune Highway, Pune – 411021 PAN: AAPPR5736F 2 12/PUN/2018 Adroit Enterprises, DCIT, Circle 1(2), 2011-12 S.No.6/2/1, Yogiraj Park Pune Colony, Asmita Bunglow, Karve Nagar, Pune-411052 PAN: AALFA1231E 3 563/PUN/2019 Thuse Elektronics Pvt.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chandrashekhar Ashok Joshi, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM Sl. ITA No./Co.No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1 975/PUN/2018 Dinesh Rathi, DCIT, Circle 3, Pune 2009-10 (Prop. M/s. Elcon Instruments & Engineers), Office No.805, Pinnacle Brookside, 52/1A, Bavdhan Kh, Opp Sahgal Maruti Showroom, Mumbai Pune Highway, Pune – 411021 PAN: AAPPR5736F 2 12/PUN/2018 Adroit Enterprises, DCIT, Circle 1(2), 2011-12 S.No.6/2/1, Yogiraj Park Pune Colony, Asmita Bunglow, Karve Nagar, Pune-411052 PAN: AALFA1231E 3 563/PUN/2019 Thuse Elektronics Pvt.…

Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Ahmedabad

ITA 2732/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roynishant Construction Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [Pan No.Aaacn 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: 10.07.2019
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Nishant Construction Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., 801 – 802, Regency Circle – 3(1)(1), Plaza, Anand Nagar Road, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN No.AAACN 3752 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Urvashi Sodhan Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.R. Respondentby: 10.07.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 25.09.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed…

Karan Shanti Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Bharatpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…eing used against the assessee then the order passed by the Assessing Officer based on such statement is not sustainable in absence of cross examination. The 9 Shri Sandeep Sharma, Jaipur. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amdaman Timber Industries Vs CCE 127 DTR 241, while dealing with the issue of non-grant of opportunity to cross examine the witness has held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness…

Assistant Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 714/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.509/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.714/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Revenue by Mrs. Nandita Kanchan…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 509/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.509/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. DCIT, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.714/PUN/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 ACIT, Circle-10, Vs. Thermax Limited, Pune 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 PAN : AAACT3910D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri H.P. Mahajani Revenue by Mrs. Nandita Kanchan…

Nawal Kishore, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…ts of the natural Justice and thus, assessment might be quashed. In support of the contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241(SC). 4.7 The Ld. Counsel, also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Nagar Vs ACIT in ITA No.3212/Del/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 and decision of Kolkata ‘SMC’ bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Manglial Jain in ITA No. 729/Kol/2018 for assessment year 2014-15. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the find…

Satish Kishore, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1704/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…ts of the natural Justice and thus, assessment might be quashed. In support of the contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241(SC). 4.7 The Ld. Counsel, also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Deepak Nagar Vs ACIT in ITA No.3212/Del/2019 for assessment year 2015-16 and decision of Kolkata ‘SMC’ bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sh. Manglial Jain in ITA No. 729/Kol/2018 for assessment year 2014-15. 5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the find…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4560/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) ITA No. 1946/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 5020/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3327/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) LG Electronics Inc. Korea DCIT(International Vs. (LGEK), Taxation), Amti Shrivastava, Advocate, Circle-2(2)(1) C/o. AZB & Partners Advocates Noida, Room No. 312, and Solicitors, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No. A8, Sector-4, Plot No. A-2D, Sector-24, Noida Noida PAN: AAACL7929E…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4560/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) ITA No. 1946/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 5020/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3327/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) LG Electronics Inc. Korea DCIT(International Vs. (LGEK), Taxation), Amti Shrivastava, Advocate, Circle-2(2)(1) C/o. AZB & Partners Advocates Noida, Room No. 312, and Solicitors, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No. A8, Sector-4, Plot No. A-2D, Sector-24, Noida Noida PAN: AAACL7929E…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4560/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) ITA No. 1946/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) ITA No. 5020/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ITA No. 3327/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) LG Electronics Inc. Korea DCIT(International Vs. (LGEK), Taxation), Amti Shrivastava, Advocate, Circle-2(2)(1) C/o. AZB & Partners Advocates Noida, Room No. 312, and Solicitors, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Plot No. A8, Sector-4, Plot No. A-2D, Sector-24, Noida Noida PAN: AAACL7929E…

DCIT, Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Amazon Metals Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…ed credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had also discussed the issue in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT, 125 ITR 713, and Andaman Timber Industries Ltd vs CCE,(2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3(SC) and held that the AO had used third party information in contravention of principles natural justice, without furnishing said information to the assessee for its rebuttal, and thus, violated principles of natural justice, consequently additions cannot be sustained. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under. 12.16 A perusal of…

Dcie Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Pali Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 904/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 37-40 Subash Road Mumbai-400 020 Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent) & C.O. No. 77/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.904/Mum/2018) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-8(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Room No. 658, 6Th Floor 37-40 Subash Road Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 057 Pan/Gir No.Aafcp0089G (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…CIT(A) had also discussed the issue in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 13 ITA.No.904 /Mum/2018 C.O.No. 77/Mum/2019 M/s. Pali Fabrics Pvt.Ltd. & Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT, 125 ITR 713, and Andaman Timber Industries Ltd vs CCE,(2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3(SC) and held that the AO had used third party information in contravention of principles natural justice, without furnishing said information to the assessee for its rebuttal, and thus, violated principles of natural justice, consequently additions cannot be sustained. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under. 12.16 A perusal of…

DCIT Central Cir-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Acro Exports Trade Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 903/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Cc-8(4) Vs. M/S Acro Exports Trade Room No. 658, 6Th Floor Pvt.Ltd. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 37-40 Subash Road Vile Parle(E) Mumbai-400 057

Section 131Section 147Section 148

…ed credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had also discussed the issue in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT, 125 ITR 713, and Andaman Timber Industries Ltd vs CCE,(2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3(SC) and held that the AO had used third party information in contravention of principles natural justice, without furnishing said information to the assessee for its rebuttal, and thus, violated principles of natural justice, consequently additions cannot be sustained. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under. 12.16 A perusal of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…o.5783/Mum/2017 AY.2013-14 DCIT, CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5784/Mum/2017 AY. 2013-14 DCIT,CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Realty Pvt. Ltd. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In the said case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the basis for passing the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority amounted to a serious flaw, which being for violation of the principles of natural justice rendered the said order as null…

Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 269/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132(4)

…, therefore, such evidence cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. In support of the contention, he has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 214 (SC). He has submitted that in similar cases the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Bhatia Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO ITA.No.2822/Del./2018 vide Order Dated 24.06.2019 has deleted similar addition in similar group of cases. He has also relied upon Order of ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ITO vs. Abhishek Ispat Pvt. Ltd., in 11 ITA.No.269/SRT/…

Mrs. Renu Sehgal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

ITA 708/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 51Section 68

…. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Supertech Diamond Tools Pvt Ltd (2015) 229 Taxman 62. The ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241. Once the assessee has discharged her onus as required u/s 68 of the Act then the said amount of Rs. 8.00 crores received by the assessee as an advance for sale of the properties was forfeited due to failure of the company to make the balance payment. Thus as per provisions of the Income Tax Act, it cannot be reduced from the cost of acquisit…

Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessee are

ITA 699/DEL/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2015-2016

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2015-16

…or the assessee stated that similar legal ground no. 2.1 involved in this appeal has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II 281 CTR 241. Hence, he requested that the legal ground no. 2.1 may be decided in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition in dispute in this appeal by respectfully follow the above ratio. He also draw my attention towards the orders of the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) regarding the issue involved in ground no. 2.1 which has been raised by the Asessee b…

Gajendra Pal Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-Baraut, Baghpat

In the result, both the appeals filed by the different assessee are

ITA 1468/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148

…for the assessee stated that similar legal ground no. 4 involved in this appeal has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II 281 CTR 241. Hence, he requested that the legal ground no. 4 may be decided in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition in dispute in this appeal by respectfully follow the above ratio. He also draw my attention towards the orders of the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) regarding the issue involved in ground no. 4 which has been raised by the Asessee befo…