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 367,154 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

Smt. Madhu Killa, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)

…1 Madhu Killa. AY 2014-15 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A. No. 834/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Madhu Killa Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AGOPK0403H) Circle-36, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 02.11.2018 For the Appellant Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, J…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ssible in law. Further such statement was never confronted to the assessee and has not seen the light of the day as such, even otherwise, such evidence cannot be relied. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: i. AndamanTimber Industries v. CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) ii. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT. [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of initiation of the reassessment proceedings, assessee has made its detailed submissions before the CIT (A) who has extracted such submissions at page 6 to 18 (in the order of the CIT (A) for the AY 2005- 2006), and for the sake of brev…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ssible in law. Further such statement was never confronted to the assessee and has not seen the light of the day as such, even otherwise, such evidence cannot be relied. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: i. AndamanTimber Industries v. CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) ii. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT. [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of initiation of the reassessment proceedings, assessee has made its detailed submissions before the CIT (A) who has extracted such submissions at page 6 to 18 (in the order of the CIT (A) for the AY 2005- 2006), and for the sake of brev…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ssible in law. Further such statement was never confronted to the assessee and has not seen the light of the day as such, even otherwise, such evidence cannot be relied. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: i. AndamanTimber Industries v. CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) ii. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT. [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of initiation of the reassessment proceedings, assessee has made its detailed submissions before the CIT (A) who has extracted such submissions at page 6 to 18 (in the order of the CIT (A) for the AY 2005- 2006), and for the sake of brev…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ssible in law. Further such statement was never confronted to the assessee and has not seen the light of the day as such, even otherwise, such evidence cannot be relied. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments: i. AndamanTimber Industries v. CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) ii. Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT. [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that in respect of initiation of the reassessment proceedings, assessee has made its detailed submissions before the CIT (A) who has extracted such submissions at page 6 to 18 (in the order of the CIT (A) for the AY 2005- 2006), and for the sake of brev…

Rukmini Devi Manpuria, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -vs- DCIT(IT), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [PAN: AXAPM 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.10.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-22, Kolkata [in short the ld…

Urvish B. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2259/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…of income. The Ld.AR relied on the series of decisions in support of his contentions: - a. Income Tax Officer v LakhmaniMewaql Das [103 ITR 437] b. Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Desire Jewels Pvt Ltd., [ITA.No. 136/Mum/2015] c. Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [127 DTR 241] (20) Finally, the ld.AR prayed for the Bench in view of the said facts, the reopening of assessment by the ld. AO is bad in law and has to be quashed. (21) Ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the reopening of assessment was validly made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the ma…

ITO 33(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Urvish B. Mehta, Mumbai

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

ITA 1352/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…of income. The Ld.AR relied on the series of decisions in support of his contentions: - a. Income Tax Officer v LakhmaniMewaql Das [103 ITR 437] b. Income Tax Officer v. M/s. Desire Jewels Pvt Ltd., [ITA.No. 136/Mum/2015] c. Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [127 DTR 241] (20) Finally, the ld.AR prayed for the Bench in view of the said facts, the reopening of assessment by the ld. AO is bad in law and has to be quashed. (21) Ld. DR on the other hand relied heavily on the order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the reopening of assessment was validly made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the ma…

Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 726/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shantaben Parasmal Jain, Vs. Dcit, 27, Vijay Society, Cir – 3(1), New Khanderao Road., Vadodara. Baroda. Pan No. Abwpj 8597 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.R. Revenue By : Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-I, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings & Therefore The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Required To Be Quashed. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Disallowance Of Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs. 87,57,789/- As Exempt Income & Adding Back To The Total Income Of The Appellant & Therefore The Learned Ao Should Be Directed To Allow The Claim Of Exempt Income. 3. That The Appellant Craves Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter & Delete Any Grounds Of Appeal Before The Final Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148

…t's order of SLP dismissal in the case of CIT Vs Sunita Dhadda (403 ITR 309)(St) SLP dismissal. 10 Shantaben Parasmal jain vs. DCIT 2010-11 B. Judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (Civil App No. 4228 of 2006)(281 CTR 241)(SC). C. Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court's in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram Vs CIT [(1980) 125 ITTR 713 (SC)] that the income tax authorities could not rely upon any statement which has not been confronted to the assessee and in respect of which the assessee has not been given opportunity to cross examine. D. Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 133ASection 68

…ents made by third parties, the Principles of Natural Justice is violated, and hence the assessment is vitiated and hence the assessment is bad in law and requires to be quashed in view of the following decisions. 1. Andaman Timber Industries v. C.C.E. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Wherein it is held: assessee was adversely affected. The order was vacated. 2. Kishinchand Chellaram v. C.I.T. (1980) 1251TR 0713 (SC) 3. Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. I.T.O. & Anr. (1972)83ITR508(Ker) 4. ACIT v. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. ITA/7593/MUM/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) In all these cases the above principle is enunciated: On merits o…

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, ITO, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. PAN : ACIPJ6875G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. R. Sahu, CA Department by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR : 19-07-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 17-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2016 of CIT(A)- 15, Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, ar…

Chandraprakash Paharia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6442/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 148Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6442/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 6443/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2012-13) Chandraprakash Paharia ITO 30(1)(2) Vs. 202, Jaymala Apartment Bandra Kurla Opp. Bijal Society, Near Complex Jharna Hotel, Marve Bandra Road, Malad West Mumbai- Mumbai-400 064. 4000451. PAN : AACPP4576G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. P. Daniel Department by Shri Abhi Rama Kartikiyen Date of Hearing 6.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 12.9.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) : Both the appeals…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6592/DEL/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6590-92/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15, 20015-16) HIMANSHU KOHLI ACIT D-210, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK CENTRAL CIRCLE-28 VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI NEW DELHI Vs. PIN : 110052 Pan : AKZPK7127R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing : 12.06.2018 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals pre…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6591/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6590-92/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15, 20015-16) HIMANSHU KOHLI ACIT D-210, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK CENTRAL CIRCLE-28 VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI NEW DELHI Vs. PIN : 110052 Pan : AKZPK7127R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing : 12.06.2018 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals pre…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6590/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6590-92/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2014-15, 20015-16) HIMANSHU KOHLI ACIT D-210, 1ST FLOOR, ASHOK CENTRAL CIRCLE-28 VIHAR, PHASE-1 NEW DELHI NEW DELHI Vs. PIN : 110052 Pan : AKZPK7127R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Sri Gautam Jain & Piyush K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR Date of hearing : 12.06.2018 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2018 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These three appeals pre…

Shri Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Burdwan

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

ITA 1883/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Vs Acit, Arup Kumar Bhowmick, Puratan Chak, P.O.Nutanganj, Circle-1, Distt.-Burdwan-713102. Burdwan. Pan-Aefpb3107E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. S.Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…is case has not provided adequate opportunity to the assessee to cross- examine the witness, the statements of whom were recorded u/s 131 of the Act and were relied upon by the AO. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries (supra) 281 CTR 214 (SC) held as follows:- “According to us, not allowing The assessee to cross-examine 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 [Assessment Year: 2010-11] nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natura…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3305/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 69C

…ocument without giving opportunity to the assessee to cross examine, the parties on whose statement addition has been made is not M/s. Sanghavi Exports International Pvt. Ltd., sustainable in law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 has held that not allowing assessee to cross- examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which made impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The precise observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as un…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1809/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…the Department have been dismissed vide order dated 28/03/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of the same proposition of law, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gupta 272 CTR 115. He has submitted that genuineness of the purchases have been proved by several documents on record. The books of accounts of the assessee has not been rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. It…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1808/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…the Department have been dismissed vide order dated 28/03/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of the same proposition of law, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gupta 272 CTR 115. He has submitted that genuineness of the purchases have been proved by several documents on record. The books of accounts of the assessee has not been rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. It…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1807/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…the Department have been dismissed vide order dated 28/03/2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of the same proposition of law, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 and Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gupta 272 CTR 115. He has submitted that genuineness of the purchases have been proved by several documents on record. The books of accounts of the assessee has not been rejected, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. It…