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

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…of declared turnover. 6. In our opinion, the assessee maintained regular books of account which were duly audited by the CA u/s. 44AB of the Act. These facts are not disputed. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan & Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of voluntary statement without any material evidence as to irregularity of account books or any other relevant evidence. 7. Further it is pertinent to mention the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 as per which the lower authorities should have guided the assessee as to the…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…of declared turnover. 6. In our opinion, the assessee maintained regular books of account which were duly audited by the CA u/s. 44AB of the Act. These facts are not disputed. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan & Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of voluntary statement without any material evidence as to irregularity of account books or any other relevant evidence. 7. Further it is pertinent to mention the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 as per which the lower authorities should have guided the assessee as to the…

M/S Vvd Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…of declared turnover. 6. In our opinion, the assessee maintained regular books of account which were duly audited by the CA u/s. 44AB of the Act. These facts are not disputed. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan & Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of voluntary statement without any material evidence as to irregularity of account books or any other relevant evidence. 7. Further it is pertinent to mention the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 as per which the lower authorities should have guided the assessee as to the…

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

…of declared turnover. 6. In our opinion, the assessee maintained regular books of account which were duly audited by the CA u/s. 44AB of the Act. These facts are not disputed. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Khader Khan & Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) that additions cannot be made merely on the basis of voluntary statement without any material evidence as to irregularity of account books or any other relevant evidence. 7. Further it is pertinent to mention the CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955, dated 11.4.1955 as per which the lower authorities should have guided the assessee as to the…

M/S Shailesh Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6068/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shailesh Jain Huf, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaihs3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Agspj9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Shailesh Jain HUF, Vs. ITO 19(3)(3), 2nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No.AAIHS3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. ITO 19(3)(3), 2nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 PAN/GIR No. AGSPJ9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2593/Ahd/2014With Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. ITO, Ward-1(4) Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCD 4057 H "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 ITO, Ward-1(4) Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2593/Ahd/2014With Cross Objection No.42/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. ITO, Ward-1(4) Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCD 4057 H "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2011-12 ITO, Ward-1(4) Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. Ahmedabad. 2, Bhadra-Raj Chambers Vs. Swastik Cross Roads Navrangpura, Ahmedabad…

A.C.I.T., Circle-33, Kolkata vs. M/S Sreeleathers, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 254/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…he AO to take adverse view against the assessee i.e. Shri Ashish Kumar Agarwal’s in respect of lender M/s Fast Glow Distributors 3 | P a g e Sreeleathers, , A.Y. 2015-16 cannot be considered as per the ratio laid down in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son in 352 ITR 480 (SC). According to Ld. CIT(A), the statement since have been taken on oath under survey does not have any evidentiary value and moreover the statement has been recorded in third party case (not that of assessee) and without giving the full copy of the statement to the assessee and without the AO himself examining Shri Ashish Kumar and without giv…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2785 to 2788/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13,2014-15 & 2016-17) Shri Vinod L. Gadhiya Vs. DCIT,CC-5(3) 701, Millennium apt, Room No.1906 Lallubhai Park, Extn.road Air India Building Vile Parle(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 056 Mumbai-400 021 PAN/GIR No.AASPP8898F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA Nos.2797 to 2799/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12,2012-13 & 2015-16) Smt. Bhavna V.Gadhiya Vs. DCIT,CC-5(3) 701, Millennium apt, Room No.1906 Lallubhai Park, Ex…

M/S Poddar Rubber Industries, Guwahati vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 87/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133A

…1 Poddar Rubber Industries, AY 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL HEARING” AT KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 87/GAU/2020 Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s. Poddar Rubber Industries Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AAIFP1157D) Circle-3, Guwahati Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 13.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement 15.01.2021 For the Appellant Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR For the Respondent Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, dat…

Income Tax Officer-20(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dhudhwala Real Estate and Investment, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s is allowed

ITA 4784/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 133A

…(SC).” 8. Thereafter learned CIT(A) placed reliance upon following case laws from honourable Supreme Court for the proposition that without any corroborative evidence addition is not sustainable only on the basis of admission. • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (254 CTR 228/210 Taxman 248) • Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC) 9. Accordingly learned CIT(A) deleted the addition. Against the above order, the revenue is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel of the assessee stated that the addition is made solely on the…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…Assessing Officer to make additions in the hands of the Applicant. Further, it is also well settled that no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee simply on the basis of a statement. Ref. S Khader Khan Sons - (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) affirmed in 352 ITR 480 (SC), Satinder Kumar v/s. ACIT- (1977) 106ITR 64 (HP). Not only that an admission or an acquiescence on the part of an assessee cannot be the foundation of assessment as held in various judicial pronouncements [Ref. Absalom v/s Talbot (1944) 26 Tax Cases 166, Abdul Qayumme v/s CIT- (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All), Mayank Poddar v/s. ITO - (2003) 262 ITR…

M/S Moongipa Development and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range -7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 625/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Moongipa Development बिधम/ Dcit Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6Th Floor & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Jp Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.625/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita Nos. 625 & 626/M/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)
Section 127Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Moongipa Development बिधम/ DCIT Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6th Floor, and Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, JP Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFCM1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue by: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)…

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1236/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke The DCIT, M/s Mojika Real Estate & Vs. Circle-03, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. D-89A, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECM8357R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1429/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s Mojik…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1236/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke The DCIT, M/s Mojika Real Estate & Vs. Circle-03, Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. D-89A, Meera Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECM8357R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1429/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s Mojik…

ITO 15 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mjd Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6051/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer – 15(2)(3), M/S Mjd Financial Services Room No. 360, 3Rd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, A-324, Runwal Heights Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Commercial Complex, Opp. Nirmal Life Style Lbs Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080 Pan: Aadcm6484G (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Michael (Dr) Assessee By : Shri J P Bairagra (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

For Appellant: Shri J P Bairagra (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 148

…admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made admission to show that it is incorrect." Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) that the statements obtained in the course of survey de hors corroborative evidence cannot be conclusively proof for making the additions. Furthermore, the ld. CIT(A) by referring to the statements of Shri Rakesh Doshi has given a finding that his admission was not with relation to unsecured loans obtained by the assessee from the concerned…

Anurag Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO - 24(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3186/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Anurag Agarwal, Ito – 24(1)(3), C-303, Orchid Enclave, 4Th Floor, J.B. Nagar, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400059 Parel, Pan: Adtpa6534H Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja, A.R. Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hari Raheja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Anurag Agarwal, ITO – 24(1)(3), C-303, Orchid Enclave, 4th Floor, J.B. Nagar, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Andheri (E), Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400059 Parel, PAN: ADTPA6534H Mumbai - 400012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Hari Raheja, A.R. Shri Mani Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appea…

ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kwality Steel Processors, Kolkata

Accordingly appeal of the assessee dismissed

ITA 2101/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2020AY 2015-16
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Astt. Commissioner of M/s. Kwality Steel Income Tax, Processors, Circle-35, 2nd Floor, 4 India Kolkata. Exchange Place, vs Dalhousie, Kolkata-700 001. PAN- AAEFK 2197 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT. Respondent by Sh. Miraj D. Shah, AR. Date of Hearing 15.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2020 ORDER PER SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Revenue’s appeal for AY 2015-16 arises against the order dated 30.07.2018…

Shree Laxmi Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6097/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamachandranFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 133A

…n the course of survey has admitted. It is settled law that without corroborative material, addition, simply based upon admission during survey, is not sustainable in law. This was duly expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan Son, 352 ITR 480 (SC). 7. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, when, with reference to the impounded material, assessee is submitting that there is no noting of actual on money cash received with reference to the said addition, the summary rejection of this contention by solely relying upon admission on survey is not sustainable in law. This results in the ad…

M/S. Shield Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5909/MUM/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5909/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2002-03) बिधम/ M/S. Shield Tradelinks Pvt. Ito 8(2)(1) Ltd. Mumbai. Vs. 51, Broach Street, Kapadia Chambers, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs5456C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Ar) Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Is Appeal By The Assesses Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Dated 23.07.2018 & Pertains To A.Y.2002-03. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirmed The Disallowance Of Commission Payment Of Rs.23,66,028/-. 3. In This Case, This Is The Second Round Of Appeal Before Itat. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I. T. Act, 1961 Vide Order Dated 29.12.2009 Making The Disallowance Of Commission Payment Of Rs.23,66,028/- To M/S. Moira Steels Ltd. On The Ground That The Payments Were Bogus. The Said Disallowance Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 22.11.2012. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (AR)For Respondent: None
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ated the observations of earlier assessment order. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same. It is clear that the addition is solely based on statement obtained in the survey. It is a settled law from the Hon’ble Apex Court of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons (2012) 254 CTR 228 that the statement of survey de hors any corroborative evidence cannot be the sole basis of addition of accommodation entry. Moreover, this sole basis has already been held to be not reliable by Hon’ble ITAT and the matter was remitted the file of AO. Accordingly, in our considered opinion, this addition is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, I se…