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

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

…o matter of inquiry and may include examination of the assessee itself. 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 High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well…

Smt. Nisha Jain, Kota vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. ParwalFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (ACIT) a

…was upheld because the assessee could not justify the retraction with evidence. 4.3.5 Also, the Hon. Delhi High Court, in the case of Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIF, taxmann.com 67 (Delhi), order dt. 27.01.2015, after referring to CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384, held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4.3.6 Only with regard to 'Bank Interest", I find that the admission made during the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

…f the survey proceedings does not carry any evidentiary value, therefore, no addition is sustainable on the strength of the said statement. A similar view had also been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del). In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that a statement of an assessee to have evidentiary value should have been recorded on oath. It was observed by the High Court that though an admission was an extremely important piece of evidence, it could not be said to 19 Chetan R.Shah (HUF) be conclusive and it was…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5382/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Circle 4(1) No. 14, Dda Transport Centre, New Delhi. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcj7818F & C.O. No.220/Del/2012 (In Ita No. 5382/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09) M/S Jagan Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Acit, No.14, Dda Transport Centre, Vs Circle-4(1), Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aabcj7818F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(2)

…the stock shown at Noida is a hypothetical figure. It was also held that the GP rate adopted for working the excess stock was erroneously taken at 2% instead of 9%. He also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384 wherein it was held that additions made based on the statement recorded during the survey is not a conclusive proof and the assessee’s explanation regarding the discrepancy in stock by production of relevant record needs to be considered. 24. Aggrieved the revenue filed before us. 25. Before us during the arguments, the ld. DR argued that the a…

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Parida and Jitendra NaharFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra and Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 133A

…e CIT(A). The ld. AR finally submitted that statements recorded u/s 133A of the Act without corroborative evidence have no evidentiary value. To support his contentions, ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del) (ii) ITO Vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chhattisgarh) (iii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7. Mrs. Amrita Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR has filed following written submissions to support her contentions:…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…for drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son : 210 Taxman 248 (SC) ii. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT : 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iii. CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works : 328 ITR 384 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Subhash Chand : ITA No. 875/2010 (Del) v. CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal : 379 ITR 367 (Del) vi. ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar : 327 ITR 497 (Chattisgarh) vii. TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT : (2009) 28 SOT 215 (Del) viii. Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT : 279 ITR 143 (AT)(Ahd) ix. Meeta Gulgutia : 395 ITR 526 (Del) – para 40/41 He submit…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…for drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son : 210 Taxman 248 (SC) ii. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT : 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iii. CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works : 328 ITR 384 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Subhash Chand : ITA No. 875/2010 (Del) v. CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal : 379 ITR 367 (Del) vi. ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar : 327 ITR 497 (Chattisgarh) vii. TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT : (2009) 28 SOT 215 (Del) viii. Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT : 279 ITR 143 (AT)(Ahd) ix. Meeta Gulgutia : 395 ITR 526 (Del) – para 40/41 He submit…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…for drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son : 210 Taxman 248 (SC) ii. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT : 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iii. CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works : 328 ITR 384 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Subhash Chand : ITA No. 875/2010 (Del) v. CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal : 379 ITR 367 (Del) vi. ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar : 327 ITR 497 (Chattisgarh) vii. TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT : (2009) 28 SOT 215 (Del) viii. Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT : 279 ITR 143 (AT)(Ahd) ix. Meeta Gulgutia : 395 ITR 526 (Del) – para 40/41 He submit…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…f the survey proceedings does not carry any evidentiary value, therefore, no addition is sustainable on the strength of the said statement. A similar view had also been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del). In the aforementioned case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that a statement of an assessee to have evidentiary value should have been recorded on oath. It was observed by the High Court that though an admission was an extremely important piece of evidence, it could not be said to be conclusive and it was open to the person who m…

Tridevh Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 29 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of

ITA 3064/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatridevh Construction Company, Acit-29(3) 2Nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. Lbs Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. Pan: Aadft2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Chothani With Shri Lajari Oswal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tridevh Construction Company, ACIT-29(3) 2nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. LBS Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. PAN: AADFT2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by ass…

A.S.Chinmai, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3434/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita No.3434(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri A.S.Chinmai, Prop: Sri Kanaka Jewellers, B.M.Road, Hassan Pan No.Aftpc1672C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Vijayanagar, Belur Road, Hassan Respondent Appellant By : Shri B. Sharath Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri B. Sharath Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Siddappajji, Addl.CIT
Section 133A

…alue. Reliance was placed on the following case law:- (i) CIT Vs, S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 [SC] (ii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 [Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 [Kerala] (iv) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metl Works, [2010] 328 ITR 384 [del]) 4 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and enhanced the addition to R.83.33 lakhs with the following observations; “The aforesaid submission was carefully considered on the admitted facts. The evidence on record shows that the statement given by the appellant u/s.133A (3) of the Act on 14.02.2013 was not a mere stateme…

Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Burhanpur vs. ACIT, Khandwa

In the result appeal the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abxpt0602K Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Cas Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…ry value-Appeal dismissed” (copy at pages 36 to 45 of Case Laws PB) DIT Vis Pooranmall & Sons 96 ITR 390 (SC) (copy at pages 46 to 59 of Case 2. Laws PB) Confession cannot be made foundation of assessment. 3. CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (Delhi High Court) 328 ITR 384 held that: "Income from undisclosed sources-Addition-Addition on the basis of statement recorded during survey-Assessee's statement during the course of survey is not binding as evidence." (copy at pages 60 to 66 of Case Laws PB) 4. Ashok Manilal Thakkar Vis ACIT(ITAT, Ahmadabad) 279 ITR 145 (AT) (copy at pages 67 to 79 of Case Laws PB) Held t…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 4964, 4965 & 4966/Del./2012 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., 10, Essel vs. ACIT, Central Circle 16, House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN-AAACB 1067H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Advocate Sh. Shyam Sunder, A.R. Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT/DR Date of Hearing 26.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 10.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: All these appeals have been filed by…

Sri Ambsa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…in the course of survey, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. In support of this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384); CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), and submitted that the SLP filed by Revenue against the Hon’ble Madras High Court decisions (supra) was dismissed as reported in 254 CTR 228. 6.4.1 After having heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record, I find that the said statement of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode…

Sri Ambasa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…in the course of survey, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. In support of this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384); CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), and submitted that the SLP filed by Revenue against the Hon’ble Madras High Court decisions (supra) was dismissed as reported in 254 CTR 228. 6.4.1 After having heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record, I find that the said statement of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode…

Sri Ambasa R Hsbib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…in the course of survey, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for making an addition. In support of this proposition, the learned AR placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384); CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), and submitted that the SLP filed by Revenue against the Hon’ble Madras High Court decisions (supra) was dismissed as reported in 254 CTR 228. 6.4.1 After having heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record, I find that the said statement of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode…

M/S. Alert India, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alert India, Vs. Acit, C-1, Sma Industrial Estate, Circle-19(1), New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi Pan :Aaafa4467H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Alert India, Vs. ACIT, C-1, SMA Industrial Estate, Circle-19(1), New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi PAN :AAAFA4467H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. K. Sampath & Raj Kumar, Advocates Respondent by Sh. S.R. Senapati, Sr.DR Date of hearing 21.08.2018 Date of pronouncement 12.10.2018 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 18/01/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-32…

ACIT, Cir-27(1), Kolkata, Purba Medinipur vs. Vivekananda Bera Sankarara, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2357/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 69

…ort of the contention/submissions, he relied on the following case laws:- Paul Mathews & Sons Vs.CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) K. Mohon Vs. DCIT (1995) 215ITR 275, 285 Ajit Chintaman Karve Vs. ITO (2009) 311 ITR (At) 66(Pune) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384(Del) CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2012) 25 taxmann. Com 413(SC)/ 210 taxman 248(SC) CIT Vs. Khadar Kahn Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 7. The assessee further submitted that due to family situation and out of natural love and affection all the married sisters gifted their jewelleries (including marriage) to the assessee as per following details :- 3 Sl. N…