CIT v. P. Balasubramanian

354 ITR 116High Court2013#1945 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Balasubramanian authority for?

An addition to income can be made based on an assessee's statement recorded during a survey under Section 133A only if it is substantiated by relevant supporting material and not solely on the statement itself.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Balasubramanian · P. Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 · statement under Section 133A · survey statement evidentiary value · addition based on survey statement · material to substantiate addition · corroboration of statement · Section 132(4) statement · search and seizure assessment · Madras High Court

Also reported as

231 CTR 165

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 131Section 132(4A)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 181section 114(e)abatement of assessmentsection 153(c)section 153a proceedingsthird party informationsection 132(4a)circle ratesection 158bdpercentage completion methodstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Balasubramanian

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding on the assessee. CIT v Balasubramanian (P) (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad.). Therefore reliance made by A.O. on such statement is uncalled for. 5.13. The assessee has furnished all the evidences in support of its claim showing the investment in the shares and purchases of the shares has been accepted by the A.O. in the year of its acquisition and thereafter, until the same were sold. It is submitted that the as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding on the assessee. CIT v Balasubramanian (P) (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad.). Therefore reliance made by A.O. on such statement is uncalled for. 5.13. The assessee has furnished all the evidences in support of its claim showing the investment in the shares and purchases of the shares has been accepted by the A.O. in the year of its acquisition and thereafter, until the same were sold. It is submitted that the as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding on the assessee. CIT v Balasubramanian (P) (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad.). Therefore reliance made by A.O. on such statement is uncalled for. 5.13. The assessee has furnished all the evidences in support of its claim showing the investment in the shares and purchases of the shares has been accepted by the A.O. in the year of its acquisition and thereafter, until the same were sold. It is submitted that the as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding on the assessee. CIT v Balasubramanian (P) (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Mad.). Therefore reliance made by A.O. on such statement is uncalled for. 5.13. The assessee has furnished all the evidences in support of its claim showing the investment in the shares and purchases of the shares has been accepted by the A.O. in the year of its acquisition and thereafter, until the same were sold. It is submitted that the as…

Bhagwan Madhukar Kale, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1717/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jan 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 41

…evidence on record. He further submitted that no addition can be made based on the mere statement recorded during the course of survey operation u/s 133A placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian, 354 ITR 116 (Mad.); Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 210 Taxman 248 (SC); CBDT Instruction bearing F.No.286/2/2003- IT(Inv) dated 10.03.2003 and CBDT Instruction bearing F.No.286/98/2013-IT(Inv.II) dated 18.12.2014. 9. On the other hand,…

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…unts. In the circumstances, it was unsafe for the AD to proceed to make additions solely on the basis of the statement made under Section 132(4) of the Act, which was subsequently retracted." • HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH in case of Vijay Kumar Kesar in [2010] 231 CTR 165 (Chhattisgarh) 17 ..... The substantial questions of law on which the appeal has been admitted are basically the questions of fact. It is settled law that confession made by the assessee during survey proceedings is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to establish by filing cogent evidence that the same was not true and correct. 9. Addi…

ACIT, Circle 16 (1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., Acit Circle – 16(1) V. 1St Floor, Building No. 14 Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala Mumbai – 400 020 Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Heman ChandariyaFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e to be cancelled. Appellant further placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Nandlal 5 M/s. United Home Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., & Co (341 ITR 646)(Bom), Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (348 ITR 339)(Del), P. Balasubramanian (354 ITR 116)(Mad). Since the addition on which penalty was imposed is no more in existence, therefore, respectively following judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of KG Builders (supra) and Jurisdictional High Court in case of Nandlal & Co. vs. CIT (supra), penalty of ₹.1,22,00,000/- imposed by AO is deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. On a…

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner Of 61, 6Th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Ahspd6986H]

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…2. Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 25 Taxman.com 413 (Supreme Court); 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Madras); 4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Madras); 5. Paul Mathew & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxmann 416 (Kerala); 6. Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18; 7. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samar Kumar Sen (Kolkatta Tribunal) (ITA No.952/Kol/2013) Jul 2016; 8. P R Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore…

Sarang & Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Ita Nos. 1227 To 1229/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2009-10) M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ 302, Shabnam Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-36, 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafs0638J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

…1229/Mum/2012 AYs. 2007-08 to 2009-10 M/s Sarang & Associates Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-CC-36 hands. We find that our aforesaid view stand fortified by the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Madras) and CIT Vs. Smt. S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Madras). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of the considered view that the addition of Rs.31,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee firm, merely on the basis of an unaccounted statement of its partner recorded during the course of the survey proceed…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…novation was incurred by the assessee nor the AO made any reference to the DVO to find out the correct state of affairs-No addition warranted in the hands of the assessee merely because she signed the statement accepting the same. v. ClT vs. P Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 [Madras] Survey-Statement recorded u/s 133A-No corroboration-Addition-Deletion thereof-Survey was conducted at assessee's premises-900 gms of gold was found during survey-Assessee's statement that it had 2100 gms of gold which was given to three persons was recorded-AO made addition of 3000 gms of gold-CIT(A) further made addition of unaccounted…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…novation was incurred by the assessee nor the AO made any reference to the DVO to find out the correct state of affairs-No addition warranted in the hands of the assessee merely because she signed the statement accepting the same. v. ClT vs. P Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 [Madras] Survey-Statement recorded u/s 133A-No corroboration-Addition-Deletion thereof-Survey was conducted at assessee's premises-900 gms of gold was found during survey-Assessee's statement that it had 2100 gms of gold which was given to three persons was recorded-AO made addition of 3000 gms of gold-CIT(A) further made addition of unaccounted…

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…novation was incurred by the assessee nor the AO made any reference to the DVO to find out the correct state of affairs-No addition warranted in the hands of the assessee merely because she signed the statement accepting the same. v. ClT vs. P Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 [Madras] Survey-Statement recorded u/s 133A-No corroboration-Addition-Deletion thereof-Survey was conducted at assessee's premises-900 gms of gold was found during survey-Assessee's statement that it had 2100 gms of gold which was given to three persons was recorded-AO made addition of 3000 gms of gold-CIT(A) further made addition of unaccounted…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…e Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116, wherein it was held as under :- “Any statement recorded under section 133A would have an evidentiary value only if it is supported by relevant material to substantiate same.” 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxman 416, wherein it was hel…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…e Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116, wherein it was held as under :- “Any statement recorded under section 133A would have an evidentiary value only if it is supported by relevant material to substantiate same.” 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxman 416, wherein it was hel…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…e Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116, wherein it was held as under :- “Any statement recorded under section 133A would have an evidentiary value only if it is supported by relevant material to substantiate same.” 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxman 416, wherein it was hel…

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7512/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…e Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116, wherein it was held as under :- “Any statement recorded under section 133A would have an evidentiary value only if it is supported by relevant material to substantiate same.” 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxman 416, wherein it was hel…

ACIT CC 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7408/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…e Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs S Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 13. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116, wherein it was held as under :- “Any statement recorded under section 133A would have an evidentiary value only if it is supported by relevant material to substantiate same.” 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxman 416, wherein it was hel…

Innovators Facade Systems P.Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 2, Thane

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 5450/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ovation was incurred by the assessee nor the AO made any reference to the DVO to find out the correct state of affairs-No addition warranted in the hands of the assessee merely because she signed the statement accepting the same. v. ClT vs. P Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 [Madras] Survey-Statement recorded u/s 133A-No corroboration-Addition- Deletion thereof-Survey was conducted at assessee's premises- 900 gms of gold was found during survey-Assessee's statement that it had 2100 gms of gold which was given to three persons was recorded-AO made addition of 3000 gms of gold-CIT(A) further made addition of unaccounte…

M/S. Iibs Infonet (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6509/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…. 133A of the Act is not sustainable, in view of the following case laws, which were mentioned in the Assessee’s Paper Book. - CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 214 CTR 589 (Mad.). - Unitex Products Ltd. vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT (Mumbai) - CIT vs. P. Balasubramanian 354 ITR 116 (Mad.) 3 - ITO vs. Ram Prakash ITA No. 61/Agra/2013 dated 18.7.2014. - Mahesh Ohri vs. ACIT 23 ITR (T) 522 - Abhi Developers vs. ITO (2007) 12 SOT 444 (Ahd.) - Ravinder Kumar vs. DCIT (2009) 33 SOT 251 (Del.) - DCIT vs. Premsons 37 DTR 150 (Mumbai ‘B’) - CIT vs. Digambar Kumar Jina (HUF) 84 DTR 365 (MP) - ACIT vs. Safe Enterprises (2011) 12…