Bachittar Singh v. CIT

328 ITR 400High Court2010#1725 most cited

What is Bachittar Singh v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded under section 133A, though not possessing the same evidentiary value as a sworn statement under section 132(4), cannot be considered irrelevant material and can be relied upon, especially when the assessee fails to produce regular books of account.

66

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Bachittar Singh v. CIT · section 133A statement · section 132(4) statement · evidentiary value · survey statement relevance · search and seizure statements · absence of books of account · unexplained income · additions based on statement

Also reported as

236 CTR 587

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69Section 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 153b(1)(a)time barred assessmentsection 148(1)section 153(1)(a)statement under section 132(4)bona fide mistakeretracted statementsection 90asection 153b(1)section 153(4)retraction of statement

Judgments citing Bachittar Singh v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…or the officers referred to in the said section are having power to call for information. So issuance of such a notice during or after the search could not be said to be bad in law. b) Decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh vs. CIT 328 ITR 400 (Punjab and Haryana) additions on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133(A) of IT Act was upheld even when the assessee retracted it after a couple of months. c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DayawantiVs CIT [2016] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi)where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences draw…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…or the officers referred to in the said section are having power to call for information. So issuance of such a notice during or after the search could not be said to be bad in law. b) Decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh vs. CIT 328 ITR 400 (Punjab and Haryana) additions on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133(A) of IT Act was upheld even when the assessee retracted it after a couple of months. c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DayawantiVs CIT [2016] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi)where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences draw…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5330/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…or the officers referred to in the said section are having power to call for information. So issuance of such a notice during or after the search could not be said to be bad in law. b) Decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh vs. CIT 328 ITR 400 (Punjab and Haryana) additions on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133(A) of IT Act was upheld even when the assessee retracted it after a couple of months. c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DayawantiVs CIT [2016] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi)where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences draw…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4576/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…or the officers referred to in the said section are having power to call for information. So issuance of such a notice during or after the search could not be said to be bad in law. b) Decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh vs. CIT 328 ITR 400 (Punjab and Haryana) additions on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133(A) of IT Act was upheld even when the assessee retracted it after a couple of months. c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DayawantiVs CIT [2016] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi)where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences draw…

Paraminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4575/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…or the officers referred to in the said section are having power to call for information. So issuance of such a notice during or after the search could not be said to be bad in law. b) Decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh vs. CIT 328 ITR 400 (Punjab and Haryana) additions on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133(A) of IT Act was upheld even when the assessee retracted it after a couple of months. c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DayawantiVs CIT [2016] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi)where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where inferences draw…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 dated 18/12/2018) • Pr. CIT vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (DB. Appeal No. 47/2018 dt 30/10/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) • Bachittar Singh vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P& H) DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur 8. It was accordingly submitted that in light of aforesaid decisions, sworn statement recorded of one of the director Sh Nagarmal Agarwal and duly confirmed by another director Sh. Durga Das Agarwal, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retrac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…ny vs. Asstt. CCWE 1997 (90 ELT 241) (SC) • Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 7407 of 2008 dated 18/12/2018) • Pr. CIT vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (DB. Appeal No. 47/2018 dt 30/10/2018) (Rajasthan High Court) • Bachittar Singh vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P& H) DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur 8. It was accordingly submitted that in light of aforesaid decisions, sworn statement recorded of one of the director Sh Nagarmal Agarwal and duly confirmed by another director Sh. Durga Das Agarwal, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retrac…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2993/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2704/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2703/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2195/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2194/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2705/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…such statements and evidences. The similar stand of the AO in similar circumstances was upheld by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.Shamkumar [2018] 99 taxman.com (Madras) and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Bachitar Singh 328 ITR 400. Hence, the former part of Pullangode Rubber decision would not come in to play but the later part would empower the AO to consider and act upon the material seized. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record by the AO to confirm additions and hence there is no reason to deviate from…

Pr.Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt.Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/571/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…cordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in…

Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/559/2015HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…cordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Jeans Knit Pvt Ltd

In the result, we do not find any

ITA/580/2016HC Karnataka19 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

…cordance with law. In support of aforesaid submissions, the reliance is placed on decision of Supreme Court in 'TEXTILE MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 107 ITR 195 (SC), BACHITAR SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.', 328 ITR 400, 'DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE 11(1) VS. ACE MULTI AXES SYSTEMS LTD', 400 ITR 141, 'THERMAL CORPORATION VS. CIT', 229 ITR 383 and 'GOETZE (INDIA) LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', (2006) 284 ITR 323. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has complied with the conditions mentioned in…

Summit India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5798/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: ShriSatyenSethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

…d as a matter of fact, even in the past, it was noticed that the GP of the assessee’s business was fluctuating between 21.82% to 24.81% in 2008-09 and 2007-08 respectively. Ld. CIT(A) placed reliance on the decisions reported in Bachittar Singh vs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 400 (P&H) and CIT Raj Hans towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) on the aspect of making addition on the basis of retracted statement. 14. With the above observations, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal. Assessee is, therefore, in this appeal challenging the same on the ground that in respect of the documentary evide…

Jai Mahalaxmi Ispat (I) P. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(4), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4265/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 148

…decision rendered by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (129 Taxman 416). However, the learned CIT(A) by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT (328 ITR 400), wherein it was held that the statement given u/s. 133A of the Act cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be rule out of consideration in totality of facts. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of bogus purchases. 3 M/s. Jai Mahalaxmi Ispat (I) Pvt. Limited 6. We heard learned Departmental Representative and pe…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions0 vs. Kalinga Cultural Trust

ITTA/580/2016HC Telangana28 Nov 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Parvatiben Damji Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3181/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3181/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Smt. Parvatiben Damji Shah, The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 602, Aashish Apartment, 21(1)(4), V. Tilak Mandir Road, C-10, 6 Th Floor, Vile Parle(East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 057. Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 050. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaqps2114K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 69A

…al No. 634 of 2009. 4. Abdul Qaymme v. CIT (1990) 184 ITR 404 5. ITAT Bangalore Bench decision in the case of Carpenters Classics (Exim) (p) Ltd. v. DCIT 108 ITD 142. 6. Surendra Kumar Charanjeet Kumar Singh v. CIT 282 ITR 78 (P&H HC) 7. Bacchitarsingh v. CIT 328 ITR 400(P&H HC). The learned CIT(A) observed that the contention of the assessee that statement recorded during the course of survey was not voluntary and is not supported by any documentary evidence, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate and satisfy the A.O. with corroborative evidences that cash sales were genuinely accou…