What is CIT v. Khader Khan Sons. authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement made during a survey operation or a retracted surrender, unless supported by cogent material and corroborative evidence.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Khader Khan Sons.?

24 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Khader Khan Sons. (369 ITR 145), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Khader Khan Sons. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 132(4), Section 142(1).

CIT v. Khader Khan Sons. (369 ITR 145)

AAPNA MARBLE,G T ROAD BHUCHO KALAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (HYBRID COURT) BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 639/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s Aapna Marble Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income G.T. Road, Bhuchu Kalan, Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda Bathinda 151101, Punjab [PAN: AASFA 8773A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A. : Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against…

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 623/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…he basis of a retracted statement made during the survey operation, particularly, when proper justification for retraction was also offered. (copy of order attached P.B. NO…..) (iv) The Jurisdiction Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain 369 ITR 145 held that addition made merely on the basis of statement in the course of survey is not justified unless accompanied by corroborative evidence. (copy of order attached P.B. NO…..) Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT In the case the assessee surrendered ₹ 5 crores during course of survey, however in the return of income he offered only ₹ 3 crores. AO ma…

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 611/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agrawal, Adv. (V.C)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Add. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…he basis of a retracted statement made during the survey operation, particularly, when proper justification for retraction was also offered. (copy of order attached P.B. NO…..) (iv) The Jurisdiction Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Jain 369 ITR 145 held that addition made merely on the basis of statement in the course of survey is not justified unless accompanied by corroborative evidence. (copy of order attached P.B. NO…..) Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT In the case the assessee surrendered ₹ 5 crores during course of survey, however in the return of income he offered only ₹ 3 crores. AO ma…

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250

…4 ITR 197 (Raj)\nHon,ble jurisdiction High Court has held that : Admission despite being an\nimportant piece of evidence was not conclusive and it was open to the\nassessee to show that it was not correct.\nxi. CIT Vs Ashok kumar Jain (2014) 111 DTR 291 (Raj) 369 ITR 145\nIt was held that if the assessee does not adhere to the surrender made\nth an it is for the learned AO to bring on record cogent material and other\nEvidences to support the addition rather than rely on the statements\nxii. CIT Vs. Bhaskar Mittal 73 Taxman 437 (Cal)\nThe Law empowers the ITO to assess the income of an assessee according to\nlaw…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 153CSection 250

…4 ITR 197 (Raj)\nHon,ble jurisdiction High Court has held that : Admission despite being an\nimportant piece of evidence was not conclusive and it was open to the\nassessee to show that it was not correct.\nii. CIT Vs Ashok kumar Jain (2014) 111 DTR 291 (Raj) 369 ITR 145\nIt was held that if the assessee does not adhere to the surrender made than it\nis for the learned AO to bring on record cogent material and other evidences\nto support the addition rather than rely on the statements\nConclusion\nIn view of this the learned AO first erred in making addition solely on\nstatement. it is submitted that addition cou…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. ULTIMATE CREATIONS

ITA - 411 / 2024HC Delhi02 Aug 2024

Bench: Survey But At The Time Of Survey No Agreement To Sell/Bills Were Found, Possession Of The Stock Was With Assessee'S Firm & No Payment/Advance Payment Was Received By Assessee Firm? 2.3 Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)

…the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:44:12 said judgment has been dismissed vide order dated 20-9- 2012 in CIT vs. Kader Khan (2013) 352 ITR (St.) 480 (SC). In the case of CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 / (2015) 229 Taxman 65 (Raj.), the assessee surrendered 5 crores during course of survey, however in the return of income he offered only 3 crores. AO made the addition of 2 crores. Tribunal deleted the addition. On appeal by revenue the Court held that if the assessee did not adhere to the surrender made during the course of survey, it was…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…J 867\n(Ahd)\n•\nAishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum)\n•\nS.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM)\n•\nCBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410\n•\nM.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai)\n200\n•\nCIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)]\n•\nShree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159]\n•\nACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA\nNo. 1281 to 1284/Pun/2016]\n•\nAvishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [ITA\nNo.7165/MUM/2011] dated 17.06.2015.\n3.12 Additions to bogus purchase are invalid when sales have been\naccepted by the department:\n3…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…d [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200 CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] • ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA No. 1281 to 1284/Pun/2016] • Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [ITA No.7165/MUM/2011] dated 17.06.2015. 3.12 Additions to bogus purchase are invalid when sales have been accepted by the department: 3.12.1 He…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…IT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 21 of 73 • CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] • ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA No. 1281 to 1284/Pun/2016] • Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No.7165/MUM/2011] dated 17.06.2015. 3.12 Additions to bogus purchase are invalid when sales have been accepted by the department: 3.12.1 He st…

KANCHAN INDIA LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

….DCIT Books of accounts of the appellant in any manner and there is no evidence of appellant having done any transactions with either of the party. In this regard the appellant places reliance on the following judicial pronouncements; CIT Vs Ashok Kumar Jain 369 ITR 145 (Raj) Shree Ganesh Trding Co Vs CIT 257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159 Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No7165/MUM/2011 dated 17.06.2015) DCIT Vs NIBR Bullion Pvt Ltd (ITA No 6320/MUM/2011 dated 05/12/2022) Since the order of the Ld CIT(A) is based on grossly misplaced assumption that the appellant was having its regular business with these all…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), HYDERABAD vs. DCS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Asstt. C. I. T. Vs. Dcs Limited Central Circle 2(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaacd7127J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Mohd Afzal Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy,Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.07.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-12, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Civil & Mining Contract. It Filed Its Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act On 27.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,92,02,560/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The A.R Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer From Time To Time & Filed The Requisite Details. Page 1 Of 13

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd AfzalFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy,DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)

…bove decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan Son (2012) 25 traxmann.com 413 (S.C). 18. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Ashok Dharendra, reported in 369 ITR 145 has held that addition is not justified merely on the statement recorded during the course of survey. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders reported in (2015) 372 ITR 507 has held Page 11 of 13 ITA No 445 of 2021 DCS Ltd Hyderabad that the addition cannot be made on the basis of statement during the course of…

DCIT CC-3, MUMBAI vs. NIBR BULLION P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6320/MUM/2011[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhvkvkla- 6320@Eaqcbz@2011 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), Mumbai, Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 002 Cuke Vs. ..... Izfroknh/Respondent M/S Nibr Bullion Pvt. Ltd. 78-A, Shaikh Memon Street, Mumbai-400 002 Pan No.Aabcn7138C

For Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Ms Mitali

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…dated 18/02/2014 to contend that addition cannot be made based on mere confession of additional income during the course of search operation. The learned AR in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: i. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] ii. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] iii. ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA No. 1281 to 1284/Pun/2016] dated 19.09.2018 iv. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No.7165/MUM/2011] dated 17.06.2015. 7. The learned DR rebutting the arguments made on behalf of the assessee pointed t…

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1762/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aakash Films Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(1) Room No. 436A, Plot No. A-51, Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Industrial Area Next To Aipma Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aahca5657K (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Aakash Ashish Realtors Limited V. Cit – 50, Central Circle – 8(3) Cts No. 766, 534 Mumbai S.V. Road, New Oshiwara Station Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai – 400102 Pan: Aaack7241C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…- High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal - Whether on facts, SLP filed against High Court's decision was to be dismissed -Held, yes [Para l][In favour of assessee] 3. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain Addition was held to be not justified merely on the basis (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Raj) of statement in the course of survey. (HC) 4. CIT v. M.P. Scrap Traders Addition cannot be made on the basis of statement in the (2015) 372 ITR 507 Guj course of survey. HC 5. Concept Communication No addition can be made merely on the basis of statement Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT unless same is corroborated by documentary evidence. Mumbai) ITA No.…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1194/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1192/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1191/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1188/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…(Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai) 6. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the grounds challenging the action of AO in entering jurisdiction u/s 153(C) of the Act. According to CIT(A), the AO had recorded satisfaction and that…

CIT v. Khader Khan Sons.

What is CIT v. Khader Khan Sons. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Khader Khan Sons.

AAPNA MARBLE,G T ROAD BHUCHO KALAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II BATHINDA

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -1 vs. ULTIMATE CREATIONS

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

KANCHAN INDIA LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), HYDERABAD vs. DCS LIMITED, HYDERABAD

DCIT CC-3, MUMBAI vs. NIBR BULLION P. LTD, MUMBAI

AAKASH FILMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -50, MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI

KIRITKUMAR DHARSIBAI SUBA,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT-CC-1(4), MUMBAI