Arjun Singh v. CWT

175 ITR 91High Court1989#3076 most cited

What is Arjun Singh v. CWT authority for?

An admission is strong evidence but not conclusive, and the person who made it can show it is incorrect.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Arjun Singh v. CWT · admission · not conclusive · retraction of statement · statement under section 132(4) · evidence · tax cases

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 132Section 37(1)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 194qsection 64surrender of incomesection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 40a(ia)section 142(2a)statement under section 132(4)percentage completion methodsection 153a(1)(a)

Judgments citing Arjun Singh v. CWT

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/BANG/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…erving that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. Reliance is also placed on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjun Singh v. CWT ( 175 ITR 91). 10.1 During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant company argued that The AO only based on the statements recorded by Mr. Suresh Gowda, Executive Director and Mr. Janardhan V, Internal Auditor and Finance Manager had concluded that expenses incurred are for the purpose of inflation of expenses and treated it bogus. The cl…

Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…te of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SQ: Their Lordships while observing that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. [Also refer S. Arjun Singh v. CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91/[1988] 41 Taxman 272 (Del.)]. (ii) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi AIR 1960 SC 100: The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satin…

Pkg Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5264/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishorFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…serving that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. [Also refer S. Arjun Singh v. (A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd., CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91/[1988] 41 Taxman 272 (Del.)]. (ii) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi [AIR 1960 SC 100]: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satin…

Pkg Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5263/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishorFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292C

…serving that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence, held that, it cannot be said to be conclusive and the maker can show that it was incorrect. [Also refer S. Arjun Singh v. (A.Y. 2013-14 & A.Y. 2014-15) M/s. PKG Finstock Pvt. Ltd., CWT [1989] 175 ITR 91/[1988] 41 Taxman 272 (Del.)]. (ii) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi [AIR 1960 SC 100]: The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an admission is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon and, though not conclusive, yet could be decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. (iii) Satin…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…nka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 91 (Del)] (xi) Nirmala G. Mehta v/s. A. Balasubramaniam - [269 ITR 1 (Bom)]. 35. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply to remand report assessee further contended that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…nka Ltd. - [239 ITR 804 (Cal)] (viii) Tamilnadu Brick & Tile Mfg. Industrial Services Co-op. Society Ltd. v/s. CIT - [265 ITR 332 (Mad)] (ix) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Kerala [(1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC)] (x) S. Arjun Singh v/s. CIT - [(1989) 175 ITR 91 (Del)] (xi) Nirmala G. Mehta v/s. A. Balasubramaniam - [269 ITR 1 (Bom)]. 35. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply to remand report assessee further contended that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

…ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 1 of 77 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 169/2005 Reserved on :1st November, 2017 % Date of decision:23rd April, 2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ......Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz and Mr. Prashant Bhargava, Advocates for the Income Tax Department. Versus M. S. AGGARWAL .…

M/S. Ashok & Co., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-312/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 133A

…case laws relied upon are as follows: i) CIT V Dr. N. Thippa Setty 525 ITR 322 (Karn) ii) CIT V M/s. Dhingra Metal Works 2010 TIOL 693 HC Del-IT iii) Paul Mathews & Sons V CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iv) Kader Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mad) v) S Arjun Singh V CWT 1989 175 ITR 91 vi) Asst. CIT V Monorajyam 1996 54 TTJ 97 (Coch) vii) Ashok Manilal Thakkar V A. CIT 2005 97 ITD 361(Ahd) 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that vide instruction no. F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated March 10, 2003; the Board has pointed the instances where the assessee has been forced to confess undisclosed income during the course of search, sei…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…statement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…atement without any corroborative evidence cannot be used for making an addition especially when such statements are made during the survey proceedings. For this purpose, reliance can be made on the following judicial pronouncement. i. S Arjan Singh vs. CWT 175 ITR 91 [Delhi] In this case the assessee is having one property at Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi. The assessee had indicated some value in the Wealth Tax Return. The WTO referred the matter to a valuer and accepted the value determined by the Valuation Officer. The assessee appealed to the AAC that the Valuation Officer had, inter alia, not deducted 50 perce…

G.L. Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1) Or DCIT City 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2269/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri N.R.Agrawal & Pavan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Shukla
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(6)Section 143(3)

…n on oath, thus, the statement recorded u/s.133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made the basis of the addition. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of S. Arjan Singh 175 ITR 91, Dingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384 and Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons. With respect to addition on account of purchases on the plea that there was information with the sales tax authority regarding supplier being non- genuine. Reliance was placed by ld. AR on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunrise Tollin…