CIT v. Metal Products of India

150 ITR 714High Court1984#2472 most cited

What is CIT v. Metal Products of India authority for?

The Assessing Officer has the authority to collect information in any manner and utilize it for framing an assessment, provided there is material on record to substantiate any addition made.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Metal Products of India · 150 ITR 714 · Assessing Officer powers · collection of information · framing assessment · material on record · addition to income · section 143(3) · section 147 · section 142(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 148Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14a disallowancebogus share capitalsection 153(a)audi alteram partemtax benefiton-moneysection 292csection 132(4a)tested partyshell companyviolation of natural justiceentry operator

Judgments citing CIT v. Metal Products of India

GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8348/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8348/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2018-19) Ganesharam Galbaram Mali vs The Deputy Commissioner of 74, 7thFloor,Siddhesh Jyoti E Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Wing, Near, Navjivan Society, Mumbai Grant Road, Mumbai, Grant Kautilya Bhawan, C41-43, Avenue Road S.O. Mumbai 3, near VideshBhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- PAN: AJRPG0533E 400051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Arun K…

GANESHARAM GALBARAM MALI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8347/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta (CIT DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORESHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8348/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2018-19) Ganesharam Galbaram Mali vs The Deputy Commissioner of 74, 7thFloor,Siddhesh Jyoti E Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Wing, Near, Navjivan Society, Mumbai Grant Road, Mumbai, Grant Kautilya Bhawan, C41-43, Avenue Road S.O. Mumbai 3, near VideshBhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- PAN: AJRPG0533E 400051 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar, CA Respondent by : Shri Arun K…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6525/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…asthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal\nMali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision\nfor permitting the cross examination of the persons whose\nstatements were recorded during survey.\"\n\nIn CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it\nwas held that the AO may gather information in any manner he\nlikes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same\nagainst the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy\nthe requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is\nthat he should have material upon which to base the\nassessment; \"material\" a…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…e Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal\nMali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision\nfor permitting the cross examination of the persons whose\nstatements were recorded during survey.\nIn CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it\nwas held that the AO may gather information in any manner he\nlikes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same\nagainst the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy\nthe requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is\nthat he should have material upon which to base the\nassessment; \"material\" a…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…ajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal\nMali vs. CIT 256ITR536(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision\nfor permitting the cross examination of the persons whose\nstatements were recorded during survey.\"\nIn CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it\nwas held that the AO may gather information in any manner he\nlikes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same\nagainst the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy\nthe requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is\nthat he should have material upon which to base the\nassessment; \"material\" a…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6524/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…Ltd. Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. (113 ITR 389) Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Products of India (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for framing the assessment, p…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6523/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…Ltd. Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. (113 ITR 389) Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Products of India (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for framing the assessment, p…

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RUNWAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6522/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…Ltd. Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. (113 ITR 389) Addl. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Metal and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in and the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Products of India (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer (150 ITR 714) to hold that the Assessing Officer may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for may collect information in any manner and utilise the same for framing the assessment, p…

ETESH P. JAIN(KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(1) , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…es: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued an…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN (KARTA),SHREE DARSHAN PIPES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…es: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued an…

ETESH PRAKASH JAIN(HUF),THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…es: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1))(c) of the Act shall be deleted.” 5. The Ld.DR argued an…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. CDS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and cross-objection of Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Cds Infra Projects Ltd., B-94, Tax, Circle 4(2), Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi-110020 Pan :Aadcc0273D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…eswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC); v ) Nokia India (P) Ltd. v. DDIT 59 taxmann.com 212, ITAT Delhi; vi) Hersh Win Chadha v DCIT 135 TTJ 513 ITAT Delhi; vii) GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT Mumbai; ix ) Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral v CIT, 150 ITR 714 P & H High Court; x ) M/s. Meghna Towers Pvt. Ltd. 87 taxmann.com 329 ITAT Delhi; xi ) M/s. Public Investment And Finance Ltd. vs. ITO 2017-TOIL-238- SC-IT; ITA No. 1445/Del.2023 & CO No.148/Del/2023 6.5 Recently, a number of assessment orders have been annulled and decided against the Revenue by the Tribunals by placing reliance on the judgeme…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3),, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 4181/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…IT v. Jay Engg.\nWorks Ltd. [1978] 113ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to\nhear "evidence", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly\ninadmissible in a court of law. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714\n(Punj. & Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gather information in any\nmanner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the\nassessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian\nEvidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base\nthe ass…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 4136/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…v. Jay Engg.\nWorks Ltd. [1978] 113ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to\nhear \"evidence\", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly\ninadmissible in a court of law. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714\n(Punj. & Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gather information in any\nmanner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the\nassessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian\nEvidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base\nthe ass…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PRADEEP PHULCHAND AGARWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 3852/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…. CIT v. Jay Engg. Works Ltd. [1978] 113ITR 389 (Delhi) held that the Assessing Officer has, no doubt, to hear "evidence", but such evidence may consist of material which would be wholly inadmissible in a court of law. In CIT v. Metal Products of India [1984] 150 ITR 714 (Punj. & Har.), it was held that the Assessing Officer may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessme…

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 874/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153C

…eptance of facts admitted in the statements recorded on oath during search. 5.3 There should be a material evidence which includes direct and circumstantial evidence, as held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Met Products of India 150 ITR 714 (P&H) (1984). Hence, in instant case of the appellant these was excel sheet data on laptop seized, which was corroborated with various statements u/s 132(4). 5.4 Further, the authenticity of excel sheet data in laptop is proved by the fact that Rs. 1 lakh was paid and returned by cheque is also a matter of record and admitted by all the parties i…

SADHU RAM GUPTA,DHURI, SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, MALERKOTLA, PUNJAB

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 873/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 873 & 874/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / A.Y. : 2017-18 & 2020-21 Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta, The Ito, House No. 263, W.No. 15B, Vs Ward-1, Sangrur, Tehsil Mohalla Dhuri, Malerkotla. Sangrur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Addpg0223H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 & 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Physical Hearing O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147Section 153C

…eptance of facts admitted in the statements recorded on oath during search. 5.3 There should be a material evidence which includes direct and circumstantial evidence, as held by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Met Products of India 150 ITR 714 (P&H) (1984). Hence, in instant case of the appellant these was excel sheet data on laptop seized, which was corroborated with various statements u/s 132(4). 5.4 Further, the authenticity of excel sheet data in laptop is proved by the fact that Rs. 1 lakh was paid and returned by cheque is also a matter of record and admitted by all the parties i…

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…) 295).\nState of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122).\nShyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.)\nThe Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR\n536(Raj.)\nCIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H),\n5.\n(Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 6 second last para)\na.\nIt is necessary to mention here that the assessee can't take the plea that the\ncorrespondence sales are there. In this regard, reliance of various courts can be placed as under:\n19\nITA NOP. 209/JPR/2025\nJAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\ni. \"the Hon'…

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…le Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assessee, even if it does not, in all respects satisfy the requirements of the Indian Evidence Act. What is necessary is that he should have material upon which to base the assessment; "material" as distin…

SHRI GANESH BHIVRAJ BHUTADA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…technical rules of evidence. It has been held at various judicial forums that what is important for income tax proceedings is observance of principle of natural justice and strict rules of evidence does not apply. In the case of CIT v Metal Products of India 150 ITR 714 Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that “…..strict rules of evidence, as are known to the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to income-tax proceedings and thus the word 'evidence in the income-tax proceedings has to be understood in the generic sense.” 20.2 In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT Mumbai Bench has relied u…

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3