What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

A statement recorded under duress during a survey, if subsequently retracted, has no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for an income-tax assessment; the assessment should instead rely on audited accounts.

How many judgments cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son?

452 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157), spanning 2010 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 147, Section 148, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Buildspace LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1485/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…gedly accepted that M/s. Satyam Project Ltd is a paper company. At the outset, it may be noted that his statement being recorded in the course of survey u/s.133A of the Act cannot be relied upon as has been held in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad HC) as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in [2012] 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC) as follows: "Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath. In contradistinction to the power under section 133A, section 132(4) enables the authorized officer to examine a person on oath and any statement made by such person during such examina…

Smt. Ranu Malav, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1445/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…mt. Sheela Dhakar & Ors vs. DCIT Therein, the Coordinate Bench was also of the view that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act would not automatically bind the assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT vs Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). 15. The question involved here is as to whether the amounts offered during survey and disclosed as regular income, and subsequently disclosed in the books of accounts would be covered by the head “business income’ or covered by the head ‘income from other sources’ as subsequently shown by the assessees in their respective ITR for the purp…

Smt. Sheela Dhakar, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

21. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, both these appeals deserve to be allowed

ITA 1443/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…mt. Sheela Dhakar & Ors vs. DCIT Therein, the Coordinate Bench was also of the view that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act would not automatically bind the assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT vs Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). 15. The question involved here is as to whether the amounts offered during survey and disclosed as regular income, and subsequently disclosed in the books of accounts would be covered by the head “business income’ or covered by the head ‘income from other sources’ as subsequently shown by the assessees in their respective ITR for the purp…

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 315/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR

Section 11Section 131Section 133ASection 234BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 313 to 315/JPR/2024 (A.Y.s 2015-16 to 2017-18) Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Village-Alania, Jhalawar Road, Kota 324005 PAN No.: AAAJP0539P ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Mr. Hemand Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These three appeals by the…

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 314/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR

Section 11Section 131Section 133ASection 234BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 313 to 315/JPR/2024 (A.Y.s 2015-16 to 2017-18) Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Village-Alania, Jhalawar Road, Kota 324005 PAN No.: AAAJP0539P ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Mr. Hemand Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These three appeals by the…

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 313/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR

Section 11Section 131Section 133ASection 234BSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 313 to 315/JPR/2024 (A.Y.s 2015-16 to 2017-18) Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Village-Alania, Jhalawar Road, Kota 324005 PAN No.: AAAJP0539P ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. & Mr. Hemand Gargieya, Adv., Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT- Ld. DR Date of hearing : 11/03/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These three appeals by the…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…e open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the view that even if the statement under section. 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did not have that evidentiary value, such statement cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribuna…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…e open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the view that even if the statement under section. 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did not have that evidentiary value, such statement cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribuna…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…e open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the view that even if the statement under section. 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did not have that evidentiary value, such statement cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribuna…

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Appeal of the assessee are disposed off

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…e open to show an earlier statement or an entry to be erroneous, in the present case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the earlier statement was not proved to be incorrect. As regards the judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son[2008] 300 ITR 157, we are of the view that even if the statement under section. 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did not have that evidentiary value, such statement cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribuna…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3152/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…herefore, it was contended that sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and invalid in the eyes of law. The learned AR also relied on following case laws to buttress his above submissions: i) CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR 157 ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in Khem Chand Mukim Vs. PCIT (Inv)reported in 423 ITR 129 (Del) 10. The learned AR further contended that admittedly in the instant case, there has been no compliance as mandated as per provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking electronic records as a piece of evidence. It was su…

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3151/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…herefore, it was contended that sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and invalid in the eyes of law. The learned AR also relied on following case laws to buttress his above submissions: i) CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR 157 ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in Khem Chand Mukim Vs. PCIT (Inv)reported in 423 ITR 129 (Del) 10. The learned AR further contended that admittedly in the instant case, there has been no compliance as mandated as per provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking electronic records as a piece of evidence. It was su…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3150/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…herefore, it was contended that sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and invalid in the eyes of law. The learned AR also relied on following case laws to buttress his above submissions: i) CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR 157 ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in Khem Chand Mukim Vs. PCIT (Inv)reported in 423 ITR 129 (Del) 10. The learned AR further contended that admittedly in the instant case, there has been no compliance as mandated as per provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking electronic records as a piece of evidence. It was su…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3149/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…herefore, it was contended that sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and invalid in the eyes of law. The learned AR also relied on following case laws to buttress his above submissions: i) CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR 157 ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in Khem Chand Mukim Vs. PCIT (Inv)reported in 423 ITR 129 (Del) 10. The learned AR further contended that admittedly in the instant case, there has been no compliance as mandated as per provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking electronic records as a piece of evidence. It was su…

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3148/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…herefore, it was contended that sworn statements recorded u/s.131(1A) of the Act are impermissible and invalid in the eyes of law. The learned AR also relied on following case laws to buttress his above submissions: i) CIT Vs. S.Khader Khan & Sons reported in 300 ITR 157 ii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgement in Khem Chand Mukim Vs. PCIT (Inv)reported in 423 ITR 129 (Del) 10. The learned AR further contended that admittedly in the instant case, there has been no compliance as mandated as per provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for taking electronic records as a piece of evidence. It was su…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Periampillai Nadar Thangavelu Soundarpandian, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2752/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2752/Chny/2024 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Periampillai Nadar Thangavelu Deputy Commissioner Of Income Soundarapandian, Tax, Vs. 1/1, P.P. Chavadi Theni Road, Central Circle-2(3) Madurai – 625 016. Chennai. [Pan: Adbps-2536-H]

For Appellant: Mr. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Venkataraman, CA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 69

…ment of a third person in making the addition, he should have provided an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant. 6.23 In this regard the undersigned has placed reliance on the following judicial decisions viz.. (i) CIT V. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) The Hon'ble Madras High Court held that statements obtained during the search proceedings cannot be the sole basis for making additions. The Assessing Officer must substantiate the additions with tangible evidence. This decision was later upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. (ii) CIT v. K. Bhuvanendran (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad) The Hon'bl…

M/S Orthopaedics and Trauma Center, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

25. In view of the above discussion, reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

ITA 1444/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the ld. CIT(A), assessment order dated 2-06-2021 was under challenge. Vide said assessment order, the AO computed total income of the assessee at 1,02,55,230/- by observing in the manner as:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234BSection 244ASection 250Section 271ASection 274

…lated to business income only. 15. Ultimately, the Coordinate Bench was of the view that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act would not automatically bind the assessee. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision in CIT vs Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad.). 16. The question involved here is as to whether all the 3 amounts suffered by the partner of the firm during survey and disclosed as regular income, and subsequently disclosed in the books of accounts as covered by the head “business income’ or same were covered by the head ‘income from other sources’ as subsequently shown by the firm in…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…ry value in Circle-3, [2023] 157 absence of any corroborative evidence on record and in this taxmann.com 817 regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble (Chandigarh - Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Khader Khan Son reported Trib.): in 300 ITR 157 wherein it was held that statement recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A has no evidentiary value as the officer is not authorized to administer the oath and to take any sworn statement which alone has evidentiary value as contemplated under law and reference was drawn to provisions of section 132(4) which enables the authorized officer t…

Kety Medicare Centre, Dahanu vs. ACIT CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4089/MUM/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekety Medicare Centre Vs Acit Cc-2, Thane Kety Nagar, Jawhar Road, Ashar It Park, Thane-400 604 Dahanu – 401 602 Pan : Aabfk7498M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

…. 8. Without prejudice to the above, it is also submitted that the statement recorded during the survey does not have evidentiary value. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madars High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 300 ITR 157, which was later upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 25 taxmann.com 413(SC) wherein it was held that statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced as under:- “A power to examine a person on o…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…nd the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer is on the basis of surmises and guesswork. 17. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value: i) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) ii) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxman 416 (Ker) iii) CIT vs. P. Balasubramaniam (2013) 33 taxmann.com 130 (Mad) 18. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that no arbitrary addition to the income can be made based on dumb documents, loose papers containing scribbling, rough / vague notings: i) PCIT vs. Umesh Israni…

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Buildspace LLP, Mumbai

Smt. Ranu Malav, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

Smt. Sheela Dhakar, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. Acitdcit, Central Circle, Kota

Pushpa Vidya Niketan Samiti, Kota vs. ACIT DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Jaipal Singh, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Periampillai Nadar Thangavelu Soundarpandian, Madurai

M/S Orthopaedics and Trauma Center, Jhalawar vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Kety Medicare Centre, Dahanu vs. ACIT CC-2, Thane

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune