CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

352 ITR 480Supreme Court of India2013#104 most cited

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

Statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A do not have evidentiary value as Section 133A does not empower examination on oath. Consequently, additions to income cannot be made solely based on such uncorroborated statements without other credible evidence.

581

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son · Section 133A · survey proceedings · evidentiary value · statement on oath · corroborative evidence · additions to income · uncorroborated statement · basis of assessment · Section 131 · retracted statement

Also reported as

25 Taxmann.com 413254 CTR 22825 Taxmann 413

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 147Section 132(4)Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)survey under section 133aretracted statementsection 158bbstatement under section 132(4)section 133asection 133section 292cblock periodsection 132(4)loose paperssection 131

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 423/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 422/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 421/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 420/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 418/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.Nos.420, 421, 422, 423, 424

ITA 417/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271(1)(c)

…fer 37 ITR 0151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs.CIT, 65 Taxmann.com 29 (CAL) CIT, Kolkata -XV Vs. Tara 8 ITA.Nos.413 to 418/Del./2017 & ITA.Nos.420 to 425/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Chand Mahipal, 296 ITR 101 (P& H) CIT Vs. Ramesh Bhayana, 352 ITR 480 (SC) CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 64 Taxmann.com 107 (DEL) CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal. 6. That the addition on protective basis as made by the Ld. AO and as sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) are based on erroneous views and/or non-appreciation of the facts and law involved including non applicable case laws without properly considering or rebutting or appre…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Sreeleathers

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…assumed and presumed that the loans are in the form of accommodation entry. Further, the CIT (A) notes that interest had been paid at 12% in most cases and tax has been deducted at source. 2 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 3 CA No. 4228 of 2006 (SC) ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 8 of 14 Further, the replies received by the Assessing Officer to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act was also held to be very relevant and from the reply it was established that the net worth of the each of the companies were in crores of rupees and they have declared…

Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 49, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 17/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Shiva Shakti Enclaves Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Raigad Darshan (Appeals)–49 Oppsite Indian Oil Company, 605, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. J.P. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aagcs5014B Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 68

…d law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.Khader Khan & Sons (25 Taxmann.com 413). The CBDT instructions No. F.No.286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II) dated Shiva Shakti Enclave P Ltd; A.Y. 2009–10 18/12/2014 also discourages confessional statements without any credible evidences. No incriminating material is shown to have been found during the course of survey proceedings. 8.4 We also find that learned CIT(A) has gone by irrele…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram vs. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.44/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Ward-1, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan: Aljpp 1952 A C.O. No.35/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.44/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay :2017-18) M/S. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-1, Pan: Acsfs 8799 N Vizianagaram. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 15/06/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN HariFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ccounted in books, the same sales was wrongly added oonce gain in the Assessment Order and it amounts to double taxation and pleaded that it may be deleted. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein it was held that section 133A does not empower Income Tax Authority or any person of them and the statement recorded under that section has no evidentiary value and cannot be made as a basis for the addition. On the other hand, Ld. DR argued that Rs. 3 Crores represents the unaccounted sales in addition to the admission made by the a…

Vishwasrao Balwant Kadam, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Sangli

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 45/PUN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Smt. Mayuri KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.45/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vishwasrao Balwant Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Sangli. Kadam, Prop. Ambamaata Timber Deport., Padali Road, Shirala, Dist. Sangli- 415408. PAN : AHLPK0527C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Mayuri Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 25.05.2022 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 14.11.2…

Shri Mahesh Vasudev Malhotra, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1482/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)
Section 133A(1)(b)Section 133A(4)(b)Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…f Rs.4 Lakhs” and based on the statement, the AO made the addition of Rs.4 Lakhs based 5 A.Y. 2009-10 Mahesh Vasudev Malhotra. on which the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that the Section 133A does not empower any income tax authorities to examine any person of oath, hence any such statement does not have any evidentiary value and any such admission made during survey against by itself be made the basis of an addition. Since the quantum addition of Rs.4 Lakhs has been made based on the sole statement…

Bini Builders P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1321/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1321/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Bini Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Central Circle-7(3) 203-204, Raigad Darshan, Jp Room No.655, Aayakar Vs. Road, Andheri West, Bhawan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb3447R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.05.2021 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceeding Under Section 147. A.Y.2009-10 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming & Creating Reason To Believe For Escaped Assessment U/S. 147 As There Was No Failure On Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully & Truly Fact.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 68

…d law that statements recorded during the course of survey proceedings would not have much evidentiary value unless the same are backed by credible evidences. This position has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s S.Khader Khan & Sons (25 Taxmann.com 413). The CBDT instructions No. F.No.286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II) dated 18/12/2014 also discourages confessional statements without any credible evidences. No incriminating material is shown to have been found during the course of survey proceedings. 8.4 We also find that learned CIT(A) has gone by irrelevant considerations to confirm the impugned…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

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

…. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (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. A…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata vs. Khaitan Foundation

In the result, the connected application for stay IA

ITAT/244/2018HC Calcutta12 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 12ASection 260A

…he settled legal principle that a statement made by a third party during the course of survey operation is not binding on the assessee and in this regard rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S Khadder Khan & Sons reported in 352 ITR 480. Furthermore, the Tribunal examined the facts of the case and found that no other adverse finding has been recorded by the Commissioner with regard to the activities of the trust to be not in accordance with the object of the trust. Nor there is any adverse finding recorded by the Commissioner as regards the genuinity of the activities of the t…