How many judgments cite Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE?

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

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

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

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

281 CTR 241Supreme Court of India2015#32 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE authority for?

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

1,335

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

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

Also reported as

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

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3792/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

…) Pune Bench ITAT in Chandrabhan Mugale order dated 30.10.2015 b) Shri Nirmal Commercial Ltd vs CIT 308 ITR 406 (Bom) c) Calcutta high court CIT Vs Ratal Lal Surekha 61 Taxmann 133 d) Apex Court’s decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 472. 4. The Ld. DR strongly countered the submissions of the Ld. AR. The Ld. DR submitted that not mentioning the exact limb under which the penalty is levied is a mere technical defect and cannot invalidate the penalty proceedings/orders. Further, the Ld. DR placed heavy reliance on findings returned by the ITAT in the quantum order, highlighting…

M/S. Chintels India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3791/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2008-09 Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Asstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)

Bhagaban Prasad Sahu, Mayurbhanj vs. ITO, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 199/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 133Section 250(4)

…he assessee, who have denied having advanced loan to the assessee, n o adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee based on those statements. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anadman Timber Industries vs CCE, (2015) 281 CTR 241, wherein, it was 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 make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affe…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Guru Pragya Infra (P) Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 417/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 147Section 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 417/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke D.C.I.T, M/s Guru Pragya Infra (P) Ltd., Vs. Circle-2, B-37, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. Ajmer Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 8882 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 39/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 417/JP/2015) cuke D.C.I.T, M/s Guru Pr…

Kainya & Associates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6300/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6300/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Morya Pratap, DR

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

…Impex Private Limited’ arose in assessee’s own case for 2005-2006 and the same was decided in favour of the assessee by Mumbai Tribunal. Reliance has been placed on following judgments to support various contentions:- i. Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE 2015 281 CTR 214 (Apex court judgment to contend that violation of natural justice can result into nullity of order) ii CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. 2008 216 CTR 195 (Apex court judgment to contend that share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company u/s 68 iii CIT V K.C.Pipes Pvt Ltd. 2016 386 ITR 532 (P & H High Cour…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…buttal and finally passing impugned order on sole basis of borrowed findings without proving income escaping assessment charge, hence said reasons are bad in law. Apex Court in case of Andaman timber Industries Vis CCE: (2015) 127 DTR (Supreme Court) Page 241/281 CTR 241 "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 nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of 17 Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. natural justice because of w…

Sunil Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1397/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shris.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Dr.A.L. Saini, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCAFor Respondent: ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…Sunil Agarwal A.Y. 10-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA“A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRIS.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.A.L. SAINI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2258/KOL/2014 & Sunil Agarwal Vs. ACIT, Circle-50, Uttarapan DA-12, Salt Lake City, Building Complex, Ultadanga, Sector-1, Kolkata-64 Kolkata-700054 PAN No. ACTPA 4135D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by :ShriA.K.Tibrewal–FCA. Department By :ShriSnehanshu Biswas-JCIT-SR DR Date of hearing : 09/11/2016. Date of pronouncement : 30/11/2016. O R D E R PerDr. A. L. Saini, A.M. Caption above mentioned two appeals fil…

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. ACIT Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 PAN No. AARPJ1996K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri. Subodh Ratna Parkhi Respondent By : Shri. B.S. Bisht Date of Hearing : 04/08/2016 Date of pronouncement : 26 /10/2016 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. This is an…

M/S Spml Infra Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 134/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…sible under law. Reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Rajesh Kumar 306 ITR 27 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR 241(SC). The ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the order of 263 be quashed. 11. The ld. DR placed reliance on the order of CIT and submitted that on both the issues the AO did not make any enquiries and therefore the CIT was fully justified in passing the impugned order. It was submitted by him that the assessee could always explain the merit…

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Globe Op Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1610/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 92C

…e. For ready reference a few of the decisions are referred to herein below:– 33 M/s. GlobeOp Financial i) DCIT v/s Synopsys India Pvt .Ltd., 64 Taxman 110; ii) D.E. Shaw India Software Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT, 54 Taxmann. com 407; and iii) ADP (P) Ltd. v/s DCIT, 62 Taxmann.com 352 55. Therefore, following the consistent view of the co–ordinate bench 56. Before the Transfer Pricing Officer, assessee objected to selection of this company on the reason that company’s operations are based on hybrid model of supplying products and services to the customers. The Transfer Pricing Officer, however, not agreeing with the o…

M/S Vijaya Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessees are allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…ied on, for making the addition, was not granted. This was against the rules of natural justice and according to Ld. DR went against the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram (Supra) and that of Andaman Timber Industries v. CIT [127 DTR 241]. According to him non-adherence to the principles of natural justice rendered the proceedings void. ITA.474 & 475/Bang/2014 Page - 8 10. On merits, Ld. AR submitted that Ms. Geetha Neruka, CEO, of M/s. Ashapura Minechem Ltd , who was a party to the agreement had confirmed that nothing more than what was mentioned in the conveyance deed was pai…

M/S. Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2029/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2016AY 2007-2008

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…me has not been adversely commented upon by Shri Vikash Agarwal and the AO simply have disbelieved the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 214 (SC) has reiterated that without cross-examining a third party, the statement given by such third party cannot be used adversely against the assessee. Moreover, we note that in this case, the sales shown by the assessee of the very same goods that has been found to be bogus and disallowed by the Assessing Officer, has been accepted by him as corr…

Farrah Marker, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3801/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainms. Farrah Marker Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Cas Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. 297 Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion Bandra (E), Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400007 Pan - Aaepf3167B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member Ms. Farrah Marker Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) C/o. D.C. Bothra & Co. CAs Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. 297 Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion Bandra (E), Mumbai Nana Chowk, Mumbai 400007 PAN - AAEPF3167B Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue by: Capt. Pradeep Arya Date of Hearing: 06.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.04.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 24.02.2011…

ITO vs. M/S Citrix R&D India Private Limited

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s

ITA 841/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhury

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan, S. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 10A

…dinate Bench decisions of: i. Sysarris Software P. Ltd., Vs. DCIT in IT(TP)A No. 1360/Bang/2011 & IT(TP)A No. 85/Bang/2012; ii. DCIT Vs. Kodiak Networks India Pvt. Ltd., in IT(TP)A No. 532/Bang/2013 & C.O. No. 119/Bang/2015; iii. ADP Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT [62 Taxmann.com 352]; and iv. DCIT Vs. Textron Global Technology Centre (P) Ltd., [56 Taxmann.com 465] The companies rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) are also rejected in the above orders on functionality as well. Consequently, we do not find any merit in Revenue’s Ground Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 & 12. Accordingly, they are rejected. 6. Ground Nos. 8 & 9 are as unde…

M/S Roger Enterpriese P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

ITA/439/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 143Section 148Section 260A

…ITA Nos. 439/2003 & 156/2004 Page 1 of 20 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 439/2003 Reserved on: January 12, 2016 Date of decision: February 4, 2016 ROGER ENTERPRISES P. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocates. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Lakshmi Gurung along with Mr. P. Roy Choudhary, Standing counsels and Mr. Ishant Goswami and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates. And + ITA…