How many judgments cite CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia (143 ITR 486), spanning 2011 to 2025.

CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 1908 - Order XLI, Section 1908: Order 41 Rule 27, Section 1961 - Section 40A(2).

143 ITR 486High Court1983#5123 most cited

What is CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia authority for?

An appellate authority has the discretion to allow the production of additional evidence if it is required to pass orders or for any substantial cause, which must be exercised judicially.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia · additional evidence · appellate authority discretion · substantial cause · judicial discretion · Income Tax Act · tribunal powers · interest of justice

Also reported as

15 Taxmann 345

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 1908 - Order XLI Section 1908: Order 41 Rule 27 Section 1961 - Section 40A(2)Section 1961: Section 80-IA(10)Section 1963 - Rule 29

Issues it is cited on

explanation to section 37 section 92ca(1)far analysis admission of additional evidence intangible assets transactional net margin method arm's length price comparable companies section 92ca most appropriate method section 92ca(3)section 92c

Judgments citing CIT v. Kum. Satya Setia

M/S. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1978/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 1978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Samsung Heavy Industries Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Co. Ltd., C/O Price Water House (International Taxation), Coopers Pvt. Ltd., 17Th Floor, Dehradun Building 10, Tower C, Dlf, Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7859K Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv., Ms. Pooja Khanna & Sanjam Goel, Cas Revenue By : Sh. Anuj Arora, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv., Ms. PoojaFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM ITA No. 1978/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Co. Ltd., C/o Price Water House (International Taxation), Coopers Pvt. Ltd., 17th Floor, Dehradun Building 10, Tower C, DLF, Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJCS7859K Assessee by : Sh. Pawan Kumar, Adv., Ms. Pooja Khanna, & Sanjam Goel, CAs Revenue by : Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28.03.2016 ORDER Per…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2065 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…Commissioner to consider the issue afresh after taking into account the evidence in the shape of affidavits. We are of the view that the Tribunal, on the facts of this case, properly exercised its discretion. We may also refer to CIT Vs Kum Satya Setia (1983) 143 ITR 486 (MP) where it has been laid down under rule 29 of the Rules, it was within 2011:DHC:13168-DB ![](_page_9_Picture_1.jpeg) additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the p…

CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt Ltd

ITA - 2061 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011

…Commissioner to consider the issue afresh after taking into account the evidence in the shape of affidavits. We are of the view that the Tribunal, on the facts of this case, properly exercised its discretion. We may also refer to CIT Vs Kum Satya Setia (1983) 143 ITR 486 (MP) where it has ![](_page_9_Picture_1.jpeg) additional evidence and even if there was a failure to produce the documents before the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction in the interest of justice to allow the production of such vital documents. That leaves for consideration the decisio…