CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

63 ITR 411Supreme Court of India1967#1169 most cited

What is CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons. authority for?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not required to repeat its reasons when it fully agrees with the conclusions of the lower appellate authority and has no further grounds to add, even as the final fact-finding body.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons · 63 ITR 411 · Income Tax Appellate Tribunal · ITAT duty to record reasons · reasons for findings · agreement with CIT(A) · Appellate Assistant Commissioner · final fact-finding authority

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 153ASection 35DSection 40(a)(i)Section 148Section 80HHC

Issues it is cited on

section 35dprohibited by lawretraction of statementcolourable devicestatement under section 132(4)written down valuemlisection 30short term capital gainsblock of assetsshort term capital gainbusiness connection

Judgments citing CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons.

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 994/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Sun Tv Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcs4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 06.09.2018
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…is order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the findings of CIT (Appeals) in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported as 63 ITR 411 subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Global Vantedge (P) Ltd., reported as 354 ITR 21 (Del) .......... Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on the issue are affirmed and this ground of appeal of the Revenue in respect of all the AYs is dismissed.” 4.3.2 For the A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 also, on simila…

M/S Sun Tv Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 889/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.889 /Chny/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, M/S. Sun Tv Network Limited, Non-Corporate Circle 20(1) Murasoli Maran Towers, Chennai – 34. 73, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Mrc Nagar, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aadcs4885K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 06.09.2018
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…is order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the findings of CIT (Appeals) in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported as 63 ITR 411 subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Global Vantedge (P) Ltd., reported as 354 ITR 21 (Del) .......... Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on the issue are affirmed and this ground of appeal of the Revenue in respect of all the AYs is dismissed.” 4.3.2 For the A.Ys 2010-11 & 2011-12 also, on simila…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…th the clear provisions of law, the counsel could not counter it and, therefore, the court gave this verdict based on the above issue. 5.9. Ld. Principal CIT(DR) referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons 1967 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein in para 10 it has been observed as under: “............ "The ITAT is the final fact finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Appellate Tribunal fully agrees with the vie…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 598/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 597&598/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcn 5454 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 597&598/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata -vs- M/s Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCN 5454 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DR Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate Date of Hearing : 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the common order of the L…

ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 597/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 597&598/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Acit, Circle-11(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcn 5454 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 597&598/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata -vs- M/s Nap Construction Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCN 5454 B ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Goulean Hangshing, CIT DR Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Prabir Kumar Ghosh, Advocate Date of Hearing : 10.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.07.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Revenue arise out of the common order of the L…

DCIT, Circle-48, Kolkata vs. M/S. 3 Guys, Howrah

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1670/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)

…he finding of Ld. CIT(A). In this view, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a detailed order covering all the facts of the case. We also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported in 63 ITR 411 wherein it was held as under:- “The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by AAC and has no other ground to…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S Arihant Pulication (India) Ltd., Meerut

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5405/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 145(3)

…, the AO ITA No. 5405/Del./2013 & 6640/Del./2014 16 is required to determine the total income faith and not arbitrarily. The power to estimate where the accounts are unreliable, must he exercised not arbitrarily but judicially in light of relevant material (63 ITR 411). In estimating the income, the conditions of trade obtaining and the average margin of profit in the particular line of business are to be borne in mind (65 ITR 242). The estimate of turnover and the fixation of gross profit rate are two important elements which affect the assessment, and if these are fixed to the detriment of the assessee (even…

Shri Shri Prakash Bagla, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 153A

…he aforesaid factual finding was not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore we fully agree with the reasons given by the ld. CIT-A and for the same we rely in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported in 63 ITR 411 wherein it was held as under:- “The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by AAC and has no other ground to…

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. Shree Prakash Bagla, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed

ITA 1203/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 153A

…he aforesaid factual finding was not controverted by the ld. DR. Therefore we fully agree with the reasons given by the ld. CIT-A and for the same we rely in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons reported in 63 ITR 411 wherein it was held as under:- “The Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons, when the Tribunal fully agrees with the view expressed by AAC and has no other ground to…

A.C.I.T. Circle 6(1), Mumbai vs. Inx Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT-DR
Section 32Section 68

…in his order allowing this ground of appeal of the assessee. For the sake of brevity, we are not reproducing the finding of the CIT (A) in accordance with the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. K.Y. Pillah & Sons reported as 63 ITR 411 subsequently followed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Global Vantedge (P) Ltd reported as 354 ITR 21 (Del). The Ld DR has not been able to controvert the well reasoned order of the CIT (A) on the issue. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT (A) on the issue are affirmed and this ground of appeal of the Revenue in respect of a…

ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Nap Construction(P)Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1380/KOL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…agreeing with the reasoning given by the CIT(A) in the impugned order, while allowing the reliefs to the assessee, we are not giving our own reasons, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of K.Y. Pillai reported in 63 ITR 411. Accordingly, the appeal of the department is hereby dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. In the result, the appeal of the department is hereby dismissed. “ 9. Respectfully following the above co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal dt. 16-11-2007 supra, we are of the opinion that the said order dt. 16-11-07 in ITA No. 1972/Kol/2007 for the A.Y…

Baijnath Maniram, Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. 14(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7584/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7584/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Baijnath Maniram Holding & Finance Addl. Cit, Range-14(3), बनाम/ Co. Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 51-53, Mittal Court, A Wing, Vs. Nairman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefb 8365 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Randhir Gupta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 25.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 25.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.10.2011, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 16.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Raises The Following Grounds, Which We Shall Take Up In Seriatim:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Randhir Gupta
Section 114Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)

…arate reasons, even where the reasons cited in the order appeal against are detailed and the appellate authority is in complete agreement therewith (refer: CIT vs. 4 Baijnath Maniram Holding & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT K. Y. Pilliah and Sons [1967] 63 ITR 411 (SC)). We, accordingly, find no merit in the assessee’s Ground # 3. 4. Coming to Ground 4, raised by the assessee without prejudice to its earlier Grounds, challenges the concurrent decision of the Revenue on merits. The ld. AR was likewise required by the Bench to show any infirmity attending the same. He could not point out any such with regard…

CIT vs. Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1829/2010HC Delhi14 Mar 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with MsFor Respondent: Mr Vikas Srivastava with Mr Jatinder Pal Singh and Parag

…ave recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons,…

CIT vs. Global Vantedge Privated Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1254/2011HC Delhi14 Mar 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with MsFor Respondent: Mr Vikas Srivastava with Mr Jatinder Pal Singh and Parag

…ave recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons,…

CIT vs. Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1828 / 2010HC Delhi14 Mar 2013
For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with MsFor Respondent: Mr Vikas Srivastava with Mr Jatinder Pal Singh and Parag

…ave recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons,…

CIT vs. Global Vantedge Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1829 / 2010HC Delhi14 Mar 2013
For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with MsFor Respondent: Mr Vikas Srivastava with Mr Jatinder Pal Singh and Parag

…ave recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons,…

CIT vs. Global Vantedge Privated Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 1254 / 2011HC Delhi14 Mar 2013
For Appellant: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with MsFor Respondent: Mr Vikas Srivastava with Mr Jatinder Pal Singh and Parag

…ave recorded its own findings rather than merely confirming the findings of the CIT (Appeals). However, the learned counsel for the respondent/ assessee drew our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. K.V. Pilliah and Sons : (1966) 63 ITR 411 (SC), wherein, on a similar point having been raised, the Supreme Court observed as under: - “The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority and normally it should record its conclusion on every disputed question raised before it, setting out its reasons in support of its conclusion. But, in failing to record reasons,…