What is CIT v. Ashwani Gupta authority for?

Proceedings become fatal if principles of natural justice are violated, such as when seized material is not provided to the assessee or cross-examination of a person whose statement the Assessing Officer relies upon is denied.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashwani Gupta?

262 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashwani Gupta (322 ITR 396), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashwani Gupta come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 69B, Section 132(1), Section 14A.

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta (322 ITR 396)

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 110/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 108/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 107/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 106/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3272/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3271/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3270/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT< Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3269/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3268/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Shri Naiina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 3267/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…orrectness of the statement and wanted to cross examine the witness which was not given by the AO as well as ld. CIT (A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law.” The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) held that “Thus the Hon'ble High Court has held that once there is a violation of principles of natural justice in as much as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 31/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kolkata (S.C) reported in 281 CTR 214. ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta reported in 288 ITR 386 (Delhi High Court). iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd reported in [2007]288ITR386(DELHI) iv) ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. Pr. CIT in 6. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissione…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 30/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kolkata (S.C) reported in 281 CTR 214. ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta reported in 288 ITR 386 (Delhi High Court). iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd reported in [2007]288ITR386(DELHI) iv) ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. Pr. CIT in 6. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissione…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1798/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kolkata (S.C) reported in 281 CTR 214. ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta reported in 288 ITR 386 (Delhi High Court). iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd reported in [2007]288ITR386(DELHI) iv) ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. Pr. CIT in 6. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissione…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1797/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kolkata (S.C) reported in 281 CTR 214. ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta reported in 288 ITR 386 (Delhi High Court). iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd reported in [2007]288ITR386(DELHI) iv) ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. Pr. CIT in 6. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissione…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Kathik Iyer, Chennai

In the result, appeals in ITA

ITA 1796/HYD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1796 To 1798/Hyd/2019 & Ita Nos.30 & 31/Hyd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Dy. Cit Vs. Shri Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai Circle 16(2) Pan:Aftpk1261M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. M. Narmada, Cit(Dr) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 5 Appeals Filed By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad, Out Of Which 3 Appeals Are Arising From The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 For The A.Y 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2 Appeals Are Arising From The Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, For The A.Ys 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. In The Quantum Appeals, The Department Has Raised

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. M. Narmada, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…796 and others of 2019 Parasuraman Karthik Iyer i) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kolkata (S.C) reported in 281 CTR 214. ii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta reported in 288 ITR 386 (Delhi High Court). iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd reported in [2007]288ITR386(DELHI) iv) ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani vs. Pr. CIT in 6. Thus, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissione…

Prakash R Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3969/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69A

…on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT in ITA no. 58 of 2001 vide order dated 30/06/2016 wherein Hon’ble High Court placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ashwini Gupta reported in 322 ITR 396 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of M/s. Andman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 observed as under : “The Delhi High Court in Ashwani Gupta (supra)held that once there is a violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as when its seized material was not provided to an ass…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the AO as well as Ld CIT(A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law. Followed by Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Late Harbhajan Singh Makkar v ACIT dated 16/10/2019. b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another case of CIT v Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) while dealing with the issue of not providing the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses has held in para 5 to 7 that once there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such def…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the AO as well as Ld CIT(A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law. Followed by Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Late Harbhajan Singh Makkar v ACIT dated 16/10/2019. b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another case of CIT v Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) while dealing with the issue of not providing the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses has held in para 5 to 7 that once there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such def…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the AO as well as Ld CIT(A), then the orders passed based on such statement are not sustainable in law. Followed by Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in Late Harbhajan Singh Makkar v ACIT dated 16/10/2019. b) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in another case of CIT v Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Delhi) while dealing with the issue of not providing the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses has held in para 5 to 7 that once there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material is not provided to the assessee nor is cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such def…

CIT v. Ashwani Gupta

What is CIT v. Ashwani Gupta authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashwani Gupta

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Nawaz, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT< Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Vannarpettai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Shri Naiina Mohamed Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Karthik Iyer, Chennai

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Parasuraman Kathik Iyer, Chennai

Prakash R Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -19(2)(5), Mumbai

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai