How many judgments cite CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti?

15 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (44 Taxmann.com 459), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti

44 Taxmann.com 459High Court2014#7585 most cited

What is CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti authority for?

The CIT(A) has the discretion to admit additional evidence, even if filed late, provided it is necessary for deciding the issue in question appropriately and does not violate principles of natural justice.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti · CIT(A) · additional evidence · admission of evidence · Rule 46A · principles of natural justice · assessment procedure

Also reported as

367 ITR 692

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 36(i)(va)

Issues it is cited on

bogus ltcg addition under section 68 share application money principal commissioner of income-tax entry operator faceless assessment addition u/s 68 tangible material accommodation entry genuineness of the transaction section 131 section 133

Judgments citing CIT v. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीथालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रTREOR/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh…

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 108/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Amar Partap Steels Pvt. Ltd., ITO, Vs. A-161, RIICO Industrial Area, Ward-7(2), Bagroo, Bagroo, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECA 9152 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…e Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T. (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) (Para 9) which has been referred by the P&H High Court in the aforesaid decision, had held so. Besides in the case of C.I.T. v. Kamalaben Sureshchandra (2014) 367 ITR 692 (Guj), the Hon’ble Gujurat High Court held that deletion by the CIT (A) was based on appreciation of evidence on record, and hence such decision has to be upheld by the Court. Besides, the Gujurat High court in the case of C.I.T.v Sachitel Communication Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 227 Taxman 219 (Mag) (Guj) held that - “Where the assessee proved the identit…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tion. Once the initial burden was discharged, the Assessing officer had then to find out that despite production of record in relation to these parties, the version of the assessee cannot be accepted.” iv 2014 - CIT vs. KamalabenSureshchandra – Gujarat HC - [367 ITR 692] - (Annexure VI) “6. It is this order of CIT [A] which the Tribunal confirmed. From the contents of the order passed by the CIT [A], it can be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence on record. The CIT [A] having undertaken detailed exercise of reconciling the accounts and examined the source of different deposits in cash,…

ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal, Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1004/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1004/Ahd/2018 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. D-804, Awari Flats, B/H Karnavati Bunglow, S. G. Highway, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afwpa2415A (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 07/09/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1004/Ahd/2018 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. D-804, Awari Flats, B/h Karnavati Bunglow, S. G. Highway, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AFWPA2415A (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant by : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A…

The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Panchdeep Consultants, Ahmedabad

In the result, ground number 3 of the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 543/AHD/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 543 /Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2002-03 The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), M/s. Panchdeep Room No. B-507, 5th Consultants 2nd Floor, Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Vs Moonlight Complex, Bhavan, Panjara Pole, Gurukul, Drive In Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedaabd-380054 Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AAOFS2568P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Hardik Vora, A.R. Revenue by: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHA…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1115/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITO Vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Ward-1(2)(3), Shaikh, Prop. of M/s. I.K. Ahmedabad International, House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Kagdiwad, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380006 [PAN No. AHEPS2816H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) C.O. No. 10/Ahd/2022 (in ITA No. 1115/Ahd/2019) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh Vs. ITO House No. 314, Baitul Ibrahim, Ward-1(2)(3), Kagdiwa…

The ITO, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Eam Fruits LLP, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1835/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1835/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 I.T.O, Eam Fruits Llp, Ward-7(2)(2), Vs. 23, New Fruit Market, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aadfe6711B

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1835/AHD/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 I.T.O, EAM Fruits LLP, Ward-7(2)(2), Vs. 23, New Fruit Market, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad-380025. PAN: AADFE6711B (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr. D.R Assessee by : Shri Biren Shah, A.R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/05/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 3…

The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Mohammedarif Ibrahimbhai Shaikh, Ahmedabad

ITA 1115/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 147

Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 317/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 Pan : Bwgps 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘‘सी’’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Years : 2011-12 Shri Ramsangbhai Bachubhai Solanki, Income-Tax Officer, 299, Rajput Vas, Darbar Vas, Vs Ward 7(3), Rethal, Tal: Sanand, Ahmedabad Dist. Ahmedabad- 382210 PAN : BWGPS 3056 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pro…

DCIT, Circle-2 (1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R

Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ ‘D’- अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No.112/Ahd/2017 WITH CO No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14 DCIT Vs. M/s. Jagson Colorchem Cir. 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Ltd. 1st Floor Navjivan Trust 5601/1,PhaseII, Building, GIDC,Vatva, Ahmedabad-380 014 Ahmedabad-382445 PAN- AAACJ7664C Appellant/ Respondent Respondent / Cross Objector Assessee by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R Revenue by : Shri Karan Shah, A.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of H…

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Jsk Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2639/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhdcit-2(2), M/S Jsk Industries Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 545, Aayakar 9, A.K. Naik Marg, Near New Bhavan, M.K. Road, Empire Cinema, Cst (V.T.), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcj5937F

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Aarju Garodia (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 8Section 80I

…sufficient time and opportunity to the Assessing Officer for submitting remand report. There is therefore no violation of principles of natural justice. We thus quote hon'ble jurisdictional high court's decision in CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (2014) 367 ITR 692 (Guj.) to conclude that the CTT(A) has rightly admitted the instant additional evidence for deciding the issue in question in appropriate manner. 16. Learned Departmental Representative thereafter made a very strong effort to highlight the fact that the assessee had filed relevant documents hereinabove as additional evidence after committing per…

Shri Pankajkumar Bhikhabhai Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…arned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence and decided the matter, in the light of the additional evidences, on merits. He relies upon the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti [(2014) 367 ITR 692 (Guj.). 4. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relies upon the stand of the learned CIT(A) and submits that the learned CIT(A) rightly declined admission of the additional evidence. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ces to the AO and therefore compliance of Rule 46A(3) has been made. In support of his claim, the ld AR placed reliance on the judicial pronouncements in the cases of Prabhavati Shah Vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom), CIT Vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti (2014) 367 ITR 692(Guj), Electra Jaipur P Ltd Vs. Inspecting ACIT (1988) 26 ITD 236(Del), CIT Vs. Jagjot Singh(2014)41taxman.com423(All), CIT Vs Unique Plastics P Ltd (2015) 60 Taxman.com ( AP& T), Jer Kersi Contractor V ITO Mum Trib ITA No. 1892/Mum/2009. 8. We have heard the rival submission and perused the copy of the additional evidences, which are placed at pa…