CIT v. Hotel Meriya

332 ITR 537High Court2011#731 most cited

What is CIT v. Hotel Meriya authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, along with seized documents, constitutes evidence under the Income-tax Act read with the Indian Evidence Act, making such evidence admissible for search assessments.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hotel Meriya · Section 132(4) · statement during search · admissibility of evidence · search assessment · seized documents · Income-tax Act evidence · scope of statement under 132(4) · 332 ITR 537 · Evidence Act Section 3

Also reported as

195 Taxmann 459

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 69CSection 68
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 181section 24asection 56(2)(vii)(c)section 153a(b)section 245c(1)section 245d(1)section 114(e)section 79section 193section 65b(4)section 17(2)section 158bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Hotel Meriya

Raghvender Shankar Finance & Investment Company Private Limted, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

Surya Singhal, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…of accounts. Thus, the action of the AO as well as CIT(A) appears one sided and not supported by legal legs. We noted that ld. CIT(A) relied upon the following judgments :- A. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala) / [2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26.05.2010] – In this case, the issue decided was regarding evidence of the statement as per definition given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and additions made have been confirmed on the basis of the statement. In appellant's case, the appellant has not denied and / or objected the statement of the Director but the objections have bee…

Mahendra Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 69A

…relied upon by the learned CIT(A) are distinguishable on the facts of the appellant's case. The appellant submits the case wise facts of the said case laws herein under :- (a) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala) / [2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26.05.2010] “What is evidence? We shall examine it first. Evidence is defined in section 3 of the Evidence Act as follows : "Evidence" :- "Evidence” means and includes (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral ev…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Mgn Agro Properties Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue has been rendered as dismissed, in terms

ITA 3759/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia a/w. Shri AjayFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…ule of evidence, presumption or legal fiction. In order to make any addition u/s.69A there ought to be definite material to show that it was available to the assessee and the same is missing in the present case. 10.27 As regard decision of CIT v. Hotel Meriya 332 ITR 537 (Ker.) relied upon by the AO observing that the court had considered scope of a statement recorded u/s.132(4) and found that such statement recorded by the officer as well as the documents seized 10 ITA No. 3759/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2018-19) MGN Agro Properties Pvt. Ltd. would come within the preview of evidence under the Income Tax Act r.w.s.3 of the…

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

ITA 520/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is without applicati…

K.K.Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is without applicat…

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 518/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is without applicati…

Kk Radhakrishnan, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

ITA 517/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is without applicati…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 499/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. K.K. Mohandas 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is wi…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 498/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. K.K. Mohandas 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is wi…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. K.K. Mohandas 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is wi…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 495/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Ramarao, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69C

…the argument that the additions cannot be made in absence of any incriminating material found by placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of G.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT [(2016) 75 taxmann.com 215 (Ker.)] and CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [332 ITR 537]. Thus, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. K.K. Mohandas 8. The assessee raised grounds of appeal Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the very validity of assessment order on the ground that the approval u/sec. 153D granted by the JCIT is wi…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 237/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 235 to 237/COCH/2023 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s. K.K. Builders, .... Appellant K.K. Plaza, Peravoor, Kannur (Kerala) [PAN : AADFK 0068 K[ vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikkode .... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissi…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 236/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 235 to 237/COCH/2023 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s. K.K. Builders, .... Appellant K.K. Plaza, Peravoor, Kannur (Kerala) [PAN : AADFK 0068 K[ vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikkode .... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissi…

K.K.Builders, Kannur vs. DCIT, Kozhikkode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/COCH/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 235 to 237/COCH/2023 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s. K.K. Builders, .... Appellant K.K. Plaza, Peravoor, Kannur (Kerala) [PAN : AADFK 0068 K[ vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Kozhikkode .... Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Commissi…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 271/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…le Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. that estimation of income even in the search assessment had upheld. This reasoning was upheld in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. CIT [2024] 473 ITR 159 wherein it was held as under: - “10. In the case of Hotel Meriya (supra) the Assessin…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 270/COCH/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…le Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. that estimation of income even in the search assessment had upheld. This reasoning was upheld in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. CIT [2024] 473 ITR 159 wherein it was held as under: - “10. In the case of Hotel Meriya (supra) the Assessin…

Reena Engineers and Contractors Private Ltd, Panaji vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Calicut

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 269/COCH/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 80

…le Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Pink City Developers [2017] 398 ITR 153. There is no embargo even to reject the books of account in the assessment made u/s. 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2011] 332 ITR 537 held Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. that estimation of income even in the search assessment had upheld. This reasoning was upheld in the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. CIT [2024] 473 ITR 159 wherein it was held as under: - “10. In the case of Hotel Meriya (supra) the Assessin…