B.L.Choudhury v. CIT

112 ITD 293Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#4851 most cited

What is B.L.Choudhury v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner (Appeals) is not required to confront the Assessing Officer with additional evidence that the Commissioner (Appeals) obtains on their own motion. However, if additional evidence is admitted on the assessee's request, the Assessing Officer must be given an opportunity to rebut it.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

B.L.Choudhury v. CIT · 112 ITD 293 · ITAT · section 250(4) · rule 46A · additional evidence · Commissioner Appeals · Assessing Officer · confrontation · rebuttal

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 1962Section 250(4) of the IT ActSection 250(5) of the IT Act

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 5(2)section 250(4)creditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumsource of sourcerule 46aborrowed satisfactionadmission of additional evidenceshare application moneytangible materialreason to believe

Judgments citing B.L.Choudhury v. CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. MAHALAXMI BUILDWELL, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 99/DDN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun Pan :Aazfm1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Mahalaxmi Buildwell, Ward-1(1)(2), 118, Subhash Road, Dehradun Dehradun PAN :AAZFM1835G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Mayank Kumar Aggarwal, CA Department by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income T…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT vs. LAJVANTIBEN RAJABHAI HINDUJA, RAJKOT

ITA 94/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 May 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…on 250(4) of the Act. The Commissioner (appeals), may, before disposing of any appeal, make such further enquiry, as he thinks fit, for that reliance is placed on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ITO vs. Industrial Roadways (112 ITD 293) (Mumbai-Trib.) wherein it was held that: “the additional evidence is obtained by the first appellate authority on its own motion, there is no requirement, in law, to consult/confront the Assessing Officer with such additional evidence. There maybe cases where additional evidence is admitted by the first appellate authority on a request or applic…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ACORE CONSULTING PVT LTD, DLEHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

…remand proceedings examined the various issues that required verification by issuing show cause and furnished a report to the CIT(A). 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. On the issue of the scope of powers of CIT(A) u/s 250 of the IT Act and Rule 46A of the IT Rules, the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Industrial Roadways (supra), relied upon by the assessee, is very illuminating. It was held as under: “4. We have carefull…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI vs. SHRI. SRIPAL DEVICHAND JAIN, KALABURAGI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and CO by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 73/BANG/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 69A

…ann.com 105 (Kar.) ii) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii) CIT v. Dev Musco Lighting (P.) Ltd. (2009) 316 ITR 209 (Del.) iv) DCIT v. NE Technologies India (P.) Ltd. (2014) 151 ITD 783 (Hyd. - Trib.) v) ITO v. Industrial Roadways (2008) 112 ITD 293 (Mum. - Trib.) y) The assessee submits that it is a settled position of law that the power of the CIT(A) is plenary and is co-terminus with that of the AO in as much as the CIT(A) can do what AO can do and also what the AO failed to do. The appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Sy…

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 148Section 54Section 54F

…serves to be rejected. It is submitted that in certain circumstances, even additional evidence filed under Rule 46A can be accepted by the CIT(A) without sending the evidence to AO for his report. In the case of Income-tax Officer v. Industrial Roadway [2008] 112 ITD 293 (Mumbai ITAT) ( Copy at Case Law paper book page 8 to 12) it was held that if additional evidence furnished by assessee before first appellate authority is in nature of a clinching evidence leaving no further room for any doubt or controversy, in such a case no useful purpose would be served by forwarding evidence/material to Assessing Officer to…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…order under Rule 46A. The action of the CIT(A) is completely justified and is in line with the judicial pronouncements in DCIT Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Vs. NE Technologies India (P) Ltd., [47 Taxmann.com, 405 (Hyderabad-Trib)] and ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways [112 ITD 293 (Mumbai-Trib)]. In the case of ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways (supra), the co-ordinate bench has held as under: "Having regard to the provisions of Part A of Chapter XX relating to the appeals before the first appellate authority, a distinction has to be made between the evidence and material voluntarily furnished by an assessee in support of his…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…order under Rule 46A. The action of the CIT(A) is completely justified and is in line with the judicial pronouncements in DCIT Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Vs. NE Technologies India (P) Ltd., [47 Taxmann.com, 405 (Hyderabad-Trib)] and ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways [112 ITD 293 (Mumbai-Trib)]. In the case of ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways (supra), the co-ordinate bench has held as under: "Having regard to the provisions of Part A of Chapter XX relating to the appeals before the first appellate authority, a distinction has to be made between the evidence and material voluntarily furnished by an assessee in support of his…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

…order under Rule 46A. The action of the CIT(A) is completely justified and is in line with the judicial pronouncements in DCIT Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Vs. NE Technologies India (P) Ltd., [47 Taxmann.com, 405 (Hyderabad-Trib)] and ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways [112 ITD 293 (Mumbai-Trib)]. In the case of ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways (supra), the co-ordinate bench has held as under: "Having regard to the provisions of Part A of Chapter XX relating to the appeals before the first appellate authority, a distinction has to be made between the evidence and material voluntarily furnished by an assessee in support of his…

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 449/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…rder under Rule 46A. The action of the CIT(A) is completely justified and is in line with the judicial pronouncements in DCIT Circle-16(1), Hyderabad Vs. NE Technologies India (P) Ltd., [47 Taxmann.com, 405 (Hyderabad- Trib)] and ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways [112 ITD 293 (Mumbai-Trib)]. In the case of ITO Vs. Industrial Road Ways (supra), the co-ordinate bench has held as under: "Having regard to the provisions of Part A of Chapter XX relating to the appeals before the first appellate authority, a distinction has to be made between the evidence and material voluntarily furnished by an assessee in support of his…

AJAZ FAROOQI ,SECUNDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…962] 46 ITR 144 (SC) 32. Excel Industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 33. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders, [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 23 34. Indian Express (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., 140 ITR 705 (Mad.) 35. C. Radhakrishna Kumar, ITA No. 295/Hyd/2012 36. Industrial Roadways, [2008] 112 ITD 293 (Mum.) 37. N. Sasikala, 151 Taxman 42 (Chennai ITAT) 38. Lokesh Agarwal, ITA No. 1021/Hyd/2013 39. M. Prabhakar, ITA No. 1727/Hyd/2014. :- 21 -: ITA No. 786/Hyd/2020 & CO No. 3/H/2021 Ajaz Farroqi, Sec’bad. 7. The ld. DR, on the other hand, filed written submissions against the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.39 crores made b…

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S SHREE ANJANI SAREES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 30/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133A

…AO on the same. Our foregoing proposition is supported by the following judicial precedents: − CIT vs Sagar Construction (P) Ltd. (56 taxmann.com 434) [Patna HC] − PCIT vs KM Sugar Mills Ltd. [ITA No. 187 of 2016] [Allahabad HC] − ITO vs Industrial Roadways (112 ITD 293)[ITAT, Mumbai] − DCIT vs NE Technologies India (P) Ltd. (47 taxmann.com 405) [ITAT Hyderabad] 17 | P a g e ITA No.30/Kol/2020 & C.O. No. 13/Kol/2020 M/s Shree Anjani Sarees Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2016-17 30. Hence, we do not find any merit in the ld. CIT. DR’s plea for sending the issue back to the file of the AO. Moreover, we find that the ld. CIT, DR…

DCIT, LTU-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S CENTURY PLYBOARDS (I), LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 2149/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14A

…AO on the same. Our foregoing proposition is supported by the following judicial precedents: − CIT vs Sagar Construction (P) Ltd. (56 taxmann.com 434) [Patna HC] − PCIT vs KM Sugar Mills Ltd. [ITA No. 187 of 2016] [Allahabad HC] − ITO vs Industrial Roadways (112 ITD 293)[ITAT, Mumbai] − DCIT vs NE Technologies India (P) Ltd. (47 taxmann.com 405) [ITAT Hyderabad] 30. Hence, we do not find any merit in the ld. CIT. DR’s plea for sending the issue back to the file of the AO. Moreover, we find that the ld. CIT, DR was also unable to point out any perversity in the factual findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A), therefore,…

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…ght on record, no interference is called for. In support of his contentions, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v/s CIT, [1998] 100 Taxman 404 (Bom.); ii) ITO v/s Industrial Roadways, [2008] 112 ITD 293 (Mum.); iii) DCIT v/s Thoresen Chartering Singapore (Pte.) Ltd., [2008] 24 SOT 433 (Mum.); iv) CIT v/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., ITA no.293/2013 (Bom.); 33 M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd. v) DCIT v/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 141 ITD 682 (Pune); vi) Poddar & Ashish Devel…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Departmental appeal is allowed

ITA 2505/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Income Tax, Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Indl. Assurance Central Circle-1(1), Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Vs. Bldg., Old Cgo Building, J.D. Tata Marg, M.K. Road, Church Gate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaact6047R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 145ASection 14ASection 254

…and as per rule 46A read with section 254 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) on his own direction can ask the assessee to produce the document or evidence. Therefore, the Ld. A.R. relying upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293 Mumbai submitted that there is no requirement in law that Commissioner should consult and confront AO on every additional evidence. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that assessee has received all these payments through government agency only. Therefore, there is no reason to restore this matter back to the file of AO. 7. We have heard the rival conte…

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

…l. 11. The ld.AR heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom),Orissa High Court in B.L.Choudhury Vs CIT (1976)105 ITR 371 and ITO Vs Industrial Roadways 112 ITD 293(Mum) and requested the Bench to dismiss the additional ground raised by the revenue as the information and documents were not filed by the assessee on its own to which the ld.CIT(A) is not obliged u/r 46A(2) to give opportunity to the assessing officer but the information/details/evidences were called for by the ld. CIT(A) under rule 46A(4) and t…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2