CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

350 ITR 71High Court2013#2099 most cited

What is CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak authority for?

A statement made under oath during a search under section 132(4) cannot be dispelled by a self-serving retraction without further corroboration. Evidence in the form of the assessee's own statement and corroborative material is sufficient.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT · Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak · section 132(4) · retraction of statement · voluntary admission · sworn statement · statement under oath · search and seizure · corroborative material · evidence

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 38

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementgaarsection 158b(b)section 158bbvoluntary admissionsection 194qsection 153c(1)section 131(1a)statement under section 132(4)block periodsection 292b

Judgments citing CIT, Kozhikode v. O. Abdul Razak

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborated by the documents, the burden on the department ceases to exist. On the retraction being filed by the assessee, there is a burden cast on the assessee to prove the detraction…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborated by the documents, the burden on the department ceases to exist. On the retraction being filed by the assessee, there is a burden cast on the assessee to prove the detraction…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborated by the documents, the burden on the department ceases to exist. On the retraction being filed by the assessee, there is a burden cast on the assessee to prove the detraction…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborated by the documents, the burden on the department ceases to exist. On the retraction being filed by the assessee, there is a burden cast on the assessee to prove the detraction…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDNET AND SHRI B.R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SN ITA No. Asst. Appellant Respondent Year 1 709/Bang/2018 2010- Sri Srinivasa The Asst. 11 Educational & Commissioner Charitable Trust, of Income-tax, No.619/G, 2ndBlock,. Central Circle 36th Cross, -2(1) Rajajinagar, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 010 2 710/Bang/2018 2011- “ “ 12 3 711/Bang/2018 2012- “ “ 13 4 712/Bang/2018 2013- “ “ 14 5 1142//Bang/2018 2008- The Dy. Sri Srinivasa 09 Commissioner of Educational & Income-tax, Charitable Central Circle-2(1) Tr…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…e other case laws cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Shri Naresh Kumar Agarwal [350 ITR 71], the ld. D.R. contended that the burden is on the assesese to successfully and satisfactorily retract the confession and the assessee in the present case has clearly failed to discharge the same. He also relied on the following 15 A.Y. 2013-2014 Sajjan Kumar Agarwal judicial pronouncements in support of his contentions raised on behalf of the…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Vrindavan Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 235/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 28Section 80

…ch necessary journal entries have been passed in the books of account. The Ld.CIT(A) ignored all evidences to delete addition made by the AO. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Abdul Razzak (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker). 7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, by the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in assessee’s own group case in M/s Nalwa Chrome Pvt Ltd in ITA No.238/Mum/2015 dated 08-03-2017 wherein, under similar set of facts, the ITAT held that receipt in the nature of ca…

Mangla Modi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 20(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1706/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Mangla Modi Ito-20(2)(2) A-103, Highway Land, Mumbai Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan No. Aahpm4596L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Satish R. Modi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Satish R. Modi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…9 ITR 523 (Del) that once there was a clear admission, voluntarily made, on the part of the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence for the Revenue. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker) have held that a statement made under oath deemed and permitted to be used in evidence, by express statutory provision, has to be taken as true unless there is contra evidence to dispel such assumption. In the instant case, Mr. Choksi, in the statement recorded on oath, has voluntarily made a clear admission. 8.3 As mentioned hereinbefore, t…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3479/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1422 & 1423/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 Smt. Pratiksha Shah, ACIT, A-602, Ekta Milan, Central Cirle-11, बनाम/ Devki Nagar, Eksar Village, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Borivali (W), M. K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAFPM4838D Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT-25(2), Smt. Pratiksha Shah, C-11,…

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratiksha B Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4655/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1422 & 1423/Mum/2010 Assessment Years: 2005-06 and 2006-07 Smt. Pratiksha Shah, ACIT, A-602, Ekta Milan, Central Cirle-11, बनाम/ Devki Nagar, Eksar Village, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Borivali (W), M. K. Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAFPM4838D Assessment Year: 2005-06 ACIT-25(2), Smt. Pratiksha Shah, C-11,…

Alok Bhartia, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 855/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…would have co-operated in obtaining the bank statement. d) CIT Vs Dr.P.Sasikumar387 ITR 8 (Ker.) e) Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT 75 Taxman.com 308(Del.) f)Navdeep Dhingra Vs CIT 232 Taxman425(P&H) g)Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT 351 ITR 143(Del.) h) CIT V s Abdul Razak 350 ITR 71 (Ker.) i) Pr.CIT Vs M/s Nau Nidhi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.58/2017 dated 03- 02-2017 7. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we examine the applicability of two Tribunal orders on which reliance has been placed by the ld. AR of the assessee as noted above. The first Tribunal order is of Kokata Bench of the Tribunal rendered…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore vs. M/S Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1283/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. PB NO.7099, 7th KM, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura PO, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent PA No.AAACI 4027 J AND Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In ITA No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment year: 2009-10) (By the assessee) Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR) Assessee by : Shri S.Annamalai, Advocate. Date of heari…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

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

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…rs 362 ITR 673 (SC) , wherein Supreme Court observed that we have to look in the provisions of section 153A as the machinery provision. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71) in support of the proposition that clear admission in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) is binding on the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of V. Kunhambu and Sons 219 ITR 235 in support of the proposition that the addition to the income on the basis of the statement taken u/s.132(4) of…