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 366,416 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

ITO, Jaipur vs. Radaha Govind Build Estate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 468/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…any corroborating evidence has no evidentiary value. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 wherein it was held that “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 examination can also be used in evidence under the Income tax Act. On the…

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 14, Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6809/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2009-10
Section 133ASection 14ASection 234A

…rtmental Representative relied upon the orders of authorities below. 13. Upon careful consideration we note that this addition has solely based upon the statement of third party. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. 5 Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd. Khader Khan Son (352 ITR 480) has held that addition solely based upon the statement obtained under survey u/s.133A is not sustainable. Moreover, we note that the assessee has also given corresponding sales details from said purchases. It is totally contradictory that purchases are treated as bogus but sale and closing stock out of the said purchase is accepted. No defect ha…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 555/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Assessment years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sunita Madhok, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner L/R of late Sri Romesh Madhok, of Income Tax, # 327, 5th Main Road, 1st Block, Circle 1(2)(1), Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 004. PAN: ABJPM 9641D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri H.N. Khincha, CA Respondent by : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 23.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 O R D E R Per Ch…

M/S. Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT- 8 (1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6901/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6901/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6840/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Fdc Limited Acit Circle– 8(1) बिाम/ 142-48, S. V. Road {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} Jogeshwari (West) R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Mumbai – 400 102 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7016/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Circle– 8(1) M/S Fdc Limited बिाम/ {Now Acit Circle 9(3)(1)} 142-48, S. V. Road R. No. 215, Aayakar Bhavan Jogeshwari (West) Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 102 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-0253-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 08/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…tive material on record, these statements would not hold much evidentiary value and it was incumbent upon the AO to prove his case by corroborative evidences. This proposition has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s S. Khader Khan & Sons (2013; 352 ITR 480) as well as in various other decisions of Hon’ble High Courts {CIT V/s Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Raj); CIT V/s MP Scrap Traders (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Guj)}. 24 M/s FDC Limited Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Another fact borne out of the record is that all these officials have submitted sworn affidavits clarifying their earlier stat…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…ement between the parties, therefore it cannot be assessed in the hands of assessee. Further it was observed that the statement recorded by the DDIT (Inv)Unit 1(2), Bangalore, is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and it cannot be the basis for such addition. He also observed that the search team has not initiated any proceedings even on the statement recorded by them for a period of two years and later enquiry was forwarded to AO of present assessee, who has passed the assessment on the basis of presumption that an amount of Rs.2.55 crores represente…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Trishul Realty Infra Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4042/MUM/2019[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 4041 & 4042/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. CIT – Central Circle -7(3) v. M/s. Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, 6th Floor Office No. 01, 2nd Floor 3, Patel Bhuvan, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Dr. N.N Shah Lane Mumbai - 400020 Cheera Bazar, Mumbai -400002 PAN: AADCT0412D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 73/MUM/2020 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. 4041/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12)] & C.O.No. 16/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4041/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NOs. 4041 & 4042/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Dy. CIT – Central Circle -7(3) v. M/s. Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 655, 6th Floor Office No. 01, 2nd Floor 3, Patel Bhuvan, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 29, Dr. N.N Shah Lane Mumbai - 400020 Cheera Bazar, Mumbai -400002 PAN: AADCT0412D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 73/MUM/2020 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. 4041/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2011-12)] & C.O.No. 16/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.…

M/S Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 3129/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., v. Dy. CIT – Central Circle -7(3) Shop No. 8, Botawala Building Aayakar Bhavan 82/86 Raghavji Road, Gowalia Tank Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai -400036 PAN: AACCE3674P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rushabh Mehta Department by : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap Date of Hearing : 18.06.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 16.09.2021 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is f…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 506/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 505/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 504/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 503/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 502/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 501/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 500/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…referred an appeal who directed the Revenue to provide an opportunity of cross-examination to assessee. Accordingly, appeal was allowed for statistical purpose.” 80. In this connection the ld. AR also relied on the case CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “Section 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 45 of 183 value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition.” • The Hon’ble Tribunal…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No. 714/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 1 Dy. CIT, C.C-1(4) Vs. M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old CGO Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AACCH3946B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R Revenue by :…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paras Build Call Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1449/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad[A.Y 2007-08]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR

…the other hand, whatever statement is recorded under section 133A is not given an evidentiary value. The statement obtained under section 133A would not automatically bind upon the assessee." This judgment was later on affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (352 ITR 480) (SC) 2012 13.8 As regards, scrutiny of Bank account of Shri Jaspal Singh, the assessing officer found that Rs. 2,56,08,650/- was deposited in cash In the s.aid account. Out of this amount, the assessing Officer vide order sheet •entry dated 29.12/2009 acknowledged that only cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 27,80,000/- remained unexplained, for…

Shree Jainarayan Hariram Goel Charitable Trust, Raipur vs. Commissioner of I Ncome Tax ( Exemption), Bhopal

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

ITA 25/RPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Aug 2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 25/Rpr/2019) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : ) बनाम/ Shree Jainarayan Hariram Commissioner Of Goel Charitable Trust Income Tax Vs. Near Patidar Bhawan, New (Exemption), 2Nd Floor, Metro Walk Timber Market, Fafadih, Raipur (C.G.) Building, E-5, Arera Colony, Bhopal – 462016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabhg3026M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Amit Maloo Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR
Section 35(1)(ii)

…evidence to corroborate the assertions made against ITA No. 25/RPR/2019 [Shree Jainarayan Hariram Goel Charitable Trust vs. CIT(E)] - 8 - the deponent in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). iii. When such bald statement cannot be used even against the deponent (donor), the assertions made in such statement cannot be obliquely used to the prejudice of a third party i.e. assessee herein without confronting the tangible material collected by the Revenue incriminating the assessee. In the absence of any tangible evidence to impli…

ACIT Range 1(1), Bhopal vs. Aisect Ltd., Bhopal

ITA 953/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.945 & 946/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2015-16 AISECT Limited : Appellant NH-2, Hoshangabad Road, Bhaironpur Near Misrod, Bhopal PAN : AAFCA7441P V/s Income Tax Officer 1(1) Bhopal : Respondent ITA No.952 & 953/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer 1(1) : Appellant Bhopal V/s AISECT Limited : Respondent NH-2, Hoshangabad Road, Bhaironpur Near Misrod, Bhopal PAN : AAFCA7441P AISECT L…