CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works

328 ITR 384High Court2010#946 most cited

What is CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works authority for?

Statements recorded and materials collected during a survey under Section 133A are not made on oath, unlike those under Section 132(4), and thus are not conclusive evidence; an income addition cannot be made solely based on such statements.

113

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works · Section 133A · Section 132(4) · evidentiary value of survey statement · statement not under oath · non-conclusive evidence · addition based on survey statement · retracted statement · Section 133A(3)(iii) may · survey officer oath

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 488

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 69CSection 132(4)Section 148Section 250Section 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)section 243true and full disclosurecarry forward of lossessection 245dfull and true disclosureretracted statementdisallowance of interest expendituresection 245onus of proofnon-speaking orderunabsorbed depreciation

Judgments citing CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ents were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. It is submitted that statements have been recorded under section 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value and therefore, cannot be relied upon to draw any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ents were recorded u/s 131 of the Act. It is submitted that statements have been recorded under section 131 of the Act has no evidentiary value and therefore, cannot be relied upon to draw any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 1.3.1.2. Decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Pulkngode Rubeer Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 1313 Decision of the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 1.3.1.4. Decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CTT vs. P. Balasubramanian" [2013] 354 ITR 116 Page 9 ITA No.3952/Mum/2015 & 971/Mum/2020, ITA No.7900/Mum/2019 ACIT, CC 6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Limited 1.3.15 Decision of the Hon. Jaipur ITAT in the case of Unique Art Age vs. ACIT [2014] 29 TTR(T) 547 1.3.1.6. Decision of the Hon. Bomba…

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 7900/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 1.3.1.2. Decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Pulkngode Rubeer Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 1313 Decision of the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 1.3.1.4. Decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CTT vs. P. Balasubramanian" [2013] 354 ITR 116 P a g e | 9 ITA No.3952/Mum/2015 & 971/Mum/2020, ACIT, CC 6(4) Vs. M/s Arshiya Limited 1.3.15 Decision of the Hon. Jaipur ITAT in the case of Unique Art Age vs. ACIT [2014] 29 TTR(T) 547 1.3.1.6. Decision of the Hon. Bombay High Court i…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Awas Developers, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 368/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 368/Ahd/2020 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 The D.C.I.T, M/S Awas Developers, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. “Agam Buglows” Ahmedabad. Opp. Subhash Society, Sanand-Kalol Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 184Section 40ASection 68

…ement without any material or evidence would not be tenable. This view is fortified by the following decisions. i.CIT v S.Khader Khan & Sons (2012) 210 Taxmann 248 (SC) ii.CIT v P.Balasubramaniam (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad.) iii. CIT V Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del.) iv.ITO v Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chattisgarh) V.Ashok Manilal Thakkar v ACIT (2005) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) In view of the above facts and ratio laid down in case laws (supra), the addition made by the AO is hereby deleted. The ground no.4 of appeal is allowed. 14. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 195 (Bom.): [Statement recorded u/s 133A does not have any evidentiary value and that materials or information found in the course of survey proceedings could not be a basis for making any addition]  CIT –vs.- Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del): [A.O. cannot make addition solely on the basis of the statement made during the course of survey] vii. Loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated  Common Cause (A Registered Society) -vs.- UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)) : [Loose papers and electronic data not maintaine…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 195 (Bom.): [Statement recorded u/s 133A does not have any evidentiary value and that materials or information found in the course of survey proceedings could not be a basis for making any addition]  CIT –vs.- Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del): [A.O. cannot make addition solely on the basis of the statement made during the course of survey] vii. Loose papers, computer print outs, hard disk and pen drive etc. are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated  Common Cause (A Registered Society) -vs.- UOI (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)) : [Loose papers and electronic data not maintaine…

Springer Verlag Gmbh, New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

ITA 3660/DEL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA Nos. 643 to 645/Del/2005 & 3660/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2002-03 Springer Verlag GmbH, Versus DCIT, Circle 2(2), (formerly known as Springer International Taxation, Verlage GmbH & Co. KG), New Delhi. 906-907, Akashdeep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAOCS4799R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, AR Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 06.10.2023 Date of pronouncement: 04.01.2024 ORDER Captioned appeals…

Sprnger Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 645/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2001-2002

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA Nos. 643 to 645/Del/2005 & 3660/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2002-03 Springer Verlag GmbH, Versus DCIT, Circle 2(2), (formerly known as Springer International Taxation, Verlage GmbH & Co. KG), New Delhi. 906-907, Akashdeep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAOCS4799R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, AR Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 06.10.2023 Date of pronouncement: 04.01.2024 ORDER Captioned appeals…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 644/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA Nos. 643 to 645/Del/2005 & 3660/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2002-03 Springer Verlag GmbH, Versus DCIT, Circle 2(2), (formerly known as Springer International Taxation, Verlage GmbH & Co. KG), New Delhi. 906-907, Akashdeep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAOCS4799R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, AR Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 06.10.2023 Date of pronouncement: 04.01.2024 ORDER Captioned appeals…

Springer Verlag Gmbh vs. DDIT, Circle-2(2)

ITA 643/DEL/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA Nos. 643 to 645/Del/2005 & 3660/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 1999-2000 to 2002-03 Springer Verlag GmbH, Versus DCIT, Circle 2(2), (formerly known as Springer International Taxation, Verlage GmbH & Co. KG), New Delhi. 906-907, Akashdeep Building, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAOCS4799R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Chaudhary, AR Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 06.10.2023 Date of pronouncement: 04.01.2024 ORDER Captioned appeals…

ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi vs. Pramaditya, Rajasthan

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

ITA 1861/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs Pramaditya, Cc-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E Co No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. Acit, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, Cc-14, 2Nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. Pan: Ajppp2281E

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT, Vs Pramaditya, CC-14, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, 2nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. PAN: AJPPP2281E CO No.29/Del/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramaditya, Vs. ACIT, 67, Mahaveer Nagar, CC-14, 2nd Maharani Farm, New Delhi. Durgapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302018. PAN: AJPPP2281E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR CO No.29/Del/2022 Date of Hearing : 11.…

M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

…ction u/s 147 of the Act neither in the case of Shri Subodh Gupta nor in the case of any body else. 16. Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) and submitted that even on the basis of the statement made by the assessee during the course of survey, the AO could not have made addition as the said statement cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission in the statement to show that the same is incorrect. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further s…

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Nanitha Constructions, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 504/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Dy. C. I. T Vs. Nanitha Constructions Central Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aagfn1630D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.07.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Contract Works. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2019-20 On 20.09.2019 Declaring Total Income At Rs.4,41,98,240/-. In This Case, A Survey Operation U/S 133A Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted On 22.3.2019 During The Course Of Which The Assessee Had Admitted Additional Income Of Rs.6.00 Crores Voluntarily To Cover Up The Discrepancies In The Books Of Account. However, In The Return Of Income The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…n on oath and thus, any such statement has no evidentiary value. Therefore, any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition. 21. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del.) has held that any statement recorded u/s 133A has no evidentiary value. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P Balasubramaniam (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad). 22. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that every year is independent and therefore, merely because the assessee Page 12 of 14 IT…

M/S. Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर"ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Kakda Steel Private ITO-2(1) बनाम/ Limited, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AABCK 5877 F Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Smt. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 27.08.2019passed by learne…

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. Also, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. It is not always that a person is incriminated for possession of evidence since a person can also be incriminated for not being in possession of the requisite basic docum…

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. Also, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. It is not always that a person is incriminated for possession of evidence since a person can also be incriminated for not being in possession of the requisite basic docum…

Wind World India Limitead, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. Also, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. It is not always that a person is incriminated for possession of evidence since a person can also be incriminated for not being in possession of the requisite basic docum…

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. Also, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. It is not always that a person is incriminated for possession of evidence since a person can also be incriminated for not being in possession of the requisite basic docum…

Wind World India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…ons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. Also, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala M/s Wind World India Ltd; A.Y. 07-08, 10-11 to 14-15 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. It is not always that a person is incriminated for possession of evidence since a person can also be incriminated for not being in possession of the requisite basic docum…