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

581 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (352 ITR 480), spanning 2015 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 132(4), Section 132.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)survey under section 133a retracted statement section 158bb statement under section 132(4)section 133a section 133 section 292c block period section 132(4)loose papers section 131

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Kiran Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7429/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm Kiran Aluminum India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. A.C.I.T., 229-A, Kewal Industrial Estate, Circle-4(2)(2), Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, New Parel (W), Mumbai-490013. Marine Lines, Mumbai. Pan/Gir No.Aaack 2073 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…erbicure) was given back to the assessee after deducting the commission. We note that the statement recorded on oath during survey cannot be the sole basis for making the disallowance as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). In any case, if the AO was of the opinion that the statement of Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, the founder Director of M/s. Herbicure has adversely affected the veracity of the donation made by the assessee then he was duty bound to summon Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta and allowed the assessee to have cross examined him, failing which the state…

Bombay Rayon Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-9(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5986/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Shri Ajit KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Anand Mohan

Section 131Section 133Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 92(1)Section 92C(1)

…oath u/s 131 of the Act M/s. Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd., 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO further erred in not appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Kadar Khan Sons as reported in 352 ITR 480 which held that the learned AO has no power u/s 133 of the Act to administer oath and take a sworn statement. Violation of Section 144CC13) of the Act 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO/TPO erred in passing the final assessment order not in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble DRP thus violating the…

Kishor Shankarrao Yadav, Sangli vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Sangli

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

ITA 1251/PUN/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 133ASection 44A

…with the set principles of natural justice. The statement given by the assessee during the survey action is not sacrosanct as discussed by the CIT(A) in his order referring to the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 352 ITR 480 (SC). Income Tax Authorities failed to consider this loan transaction explanation in a correct perspective. I find nexus of the loan to the said stock discrepancy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the CIT(A) should consider the existing loan taken by the assessee from the Cooperative Bank as source of investments and adjudicate the issue afres…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tiary value as contemplated under law. Therefore the statement elicited during the survey operation has no evidentiary value. Similar view is taken in CIT vs. S. Khader Khan songs (2008) 300 ITR 157 (mad) [SLP filed by the department dismissed -210 Taxman 248/254 CTR 228(SC). 21. We find that in the case of Ashok Hanilal Thakkar vs. ACIT-279 ITR 143 (I.T.A.T.-AHM) No addition in come on the basis of disclosure could be made where the assessee had retracted certain income after disclosing it and no material had been found to prove this income during the survey. Sayyed Hamid Ali ITANo.38/Ind/2017 22. Hon'ble Bomba…

DCIT Cent. Cir. -8(4), Mumbai vs. Mindset Estates Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5038/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar

Section 132Section 132(4)

…impenetrable sheild to the concerned person, but it is also equally true that a statement per se by itself is not conclusive evidence. This legal proposition is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs S Kader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480(SC) where it was categorically held that admission is a best piece of evidence, but that by itself is not a conclusive evidence unless it is supported by further evidence in the form of incriminating materials. This legal proposition is further fortified by the decision of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of ACIT vs Janakraj Chauhan (supra) where…

Shri Narendra Kumar Simhal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1 (2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Narendra Kumar Simhal (Huf) Ito-1(2) बनाम/ Prop:- M/S Alankar Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 30, Roshanpura, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aachn2629G Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Advs Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 27.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 25.02.2016 By Ito- 1(2), Bhopal.

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nd hence such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made in such statement cannot, by itself, be made he basis for addition. It is pertinent to note that the SLP against the S. Kader Khan's case was dismissed by Supreme Court vide order [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC)/[2012] 254 CTR 228 (SC) 8. Per Contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities and also submitted that the alleged purchase of Rs.12,23,675/- was duly entered in the books of Laxmi Dia Jewels P. Ltd. on 05.11.2012 whereas in the assessee’s books it was entered after the date of su…

Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Crcle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals with regard to depreciation of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1140/AHD/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DR

…donald and did not consider evidences such as photograph of the plant and machinery submitted before the ld. A.O. in pursuant to the ITAT direction. 10. We draw support from the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only on the basis of statement recorded during the survey proceeding u/s. 133A cannot be basis of addition. There has to be corroborative evidence in support of the contention of the ld. A.O.. In our considered opinion, assessee has complied with all the direction given by the ITAT and submitted al…

Navkar Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 2686/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)

…1 M/s Navkar Realtors Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / I.T.A. No.2686/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) M/s. Navkar Realtors DCIT-19(3) C-1/12, Hari Om Apartments Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Behind M/s. Vijay Sales Lalbaug Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (W) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 092. "थायी…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Wilson Eng. Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed being rendered as infructuous

ITA 2284/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2284/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…e admission to show that it is incorrect..." In view of the above discussion and the totality of facts of the case, it is found that the assessee's contentions are fortified by the ratio of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. S. Kader Khan Son in 352 ITR 480 (SC) and by the jurisdictional ITAT in Usha Agarwal in ITA No. 142/Kol/2014 dated 08.06.2016, which supports the proposition that the amount of alleged discrepancy in closing stock was by way of regular business transaction and not income having remained undisclosed during the relevant period. Therefore, we are of view that the Assessing Officer…

Shri Bharatkumar Mahadevprasad Shah, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2272/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Srivastava, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. jain, Sr. D.R

Section 133A

…s noticed by the survey team and on the basis of valuation, lower authorities made and confirmed addition of Rs. 76.30,290/-. 8. In such case, we draw support from a landmark judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of CIT vs. S. Khader Kan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480(SC) wherein it is held that the action u/s 133A would not have any evidential value and it could not be said solely on the basis of addition: ”A survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee-firm. One of the partners in his statement offered an additional income ofRs. 20 lakhs for the assessment year 2001-02 and Rs. 30 lakhs for the asses…

M/S. Shiv Pujan Developers, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/S.Shiv Pujan Develpers Ito, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/O. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, Abf-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. Pan : Abtfs 2833 H

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…-आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/s.Shiv Pujan Develpers ITO, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/o. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, ABF-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. PAN : ABTFS 2833 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, AR Revenue by : Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncem…

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Prakash Ply Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

ITA 1314/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiit(Ss)A No.24-25/Kol/2017 &

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153c

…erbicure) was given back to the assessee after deducting the commission. We note that the statement recorded on oath during survey cannot be the sole basis for making the disallowance as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). In any case, if the AO was of the opinion that the statement of Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, the founder Director of M/s. Herbicure has adversely affected the veracity of the donation made by the assessee then he was duty bound to summon Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta and allowed the assessee to have cross examined him, failing which the state…

ACIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Prakash Ply Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is assessee is allowed”

ITA 1313/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiit(Ss)A No.24-25/Kol/2017 &

Section 153ASection 153CSection 153c

…erbicure) was given back to the assessee after deducting the commission. We note that the statement recorded on oath during survey cannot be the sole basis for making the disallowance as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). In any case, if the AO was of the opinion that the statement of Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta, the founder Director of M/s. Herbicure has adversely affected the veracity of the donation made by the assessee then he was duty bound to summon Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta and allowed the assessee to have cross examined him, failing which the state…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ppellant in India solely relying on the statements of expatriate employees of LG Electronics India Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “LGIL”) which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 3.2 That the AO/DRP erred in not appreciating the fact that the expatriate employees of LGIL were working for and furthering the business of LGIL and not that of the Appellant. 3.3 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that in terms of Article 5(7) of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement between India and Korea(‘DTAA’) control of holding…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.5783/Mum/2017 AY.2013-14 DCIT, CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5784/Mum/2017 AY. 2013-14 DCIT,CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Realty Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021 PAN – AAFCM9819F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Incom…

M/S. Computer Force, Daman vs. The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3140/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.3140/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Computer Force, V. Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No. 376/2(14) Zari Causeway Income Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Road, Opp. Grounds Of Appeal State Co-Op, Bank Kachigam, Daman - 396 193. [Pan: Aacfc 6893 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R. P. Rastogi, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 19.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad (In Short “The Cit (A)”) Dated 10.10.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06 Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.9,16,971/- Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Income Tax Act,1961 (In Shot Of The Act)By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vapi Circle –Vapi (The Ao).

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…nsel further submitted that statement recorded during the course of survey proceedings has no evidentiary value as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Sons (2008) 300 ITR 157(Mad) affirmed by Hon`ble Supreme Court in [2013] 352 ITR 480(SC)/ [2012] 201 Taxman 248 (SC) / 25 taxmann.com 413 Page 4 of 6 Computer Force, Daman v. ACIT-Vapi/I.T.A. No. 3140/AHD/2014/A.Y.05-06 (SC) and Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC), Beside, statement there was no material found during survey which establish that the assessee has incurred any expenditure on…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Guwahati vs. M/S. Srinath Builders & Housing Company Pvt. Ltd, Guwahati

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 175/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2015-16

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, खंङपीठ गुवाहाट" , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2015-16 ACIT, Circle-3, V/s. M/s Srinath Builders & Room No. 714, 7th Housing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Floor, Anil Plaza-1, G.S. G.S. Road, Guwahati- Road, Guwahati-781005 781005 [PAN No.AAHCS 5437 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robindra Singh, JCIT-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-07-2-19 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 21-08-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Dat…

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

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

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner of 61, 6th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, MUMBAI MUMBAI [PAN : AHSPD6986H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri N.R. Suresh, AR Respondent by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26-06-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 14-08-2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A.M: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed…