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

Tridevh Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 29 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of

ITA 3064/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatridevh Construction Company, Acit-29(3) 2Nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. Lbs Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. Pan: Aadft2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Chothani With Shri Lajari Oswal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tridevh Construction Company, ACIT-29(3) 2nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. LBS Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. PAN: AADFT2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by ass…

M/S.Arham Neejdeep Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-4, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 766/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Arham Neejdeep Realtors Vs. Acit, Circle-4 Shop No.8, Milan Apartment Thane, Room No.02 Near Post Office ‘A’Wing, Ashar It Park Vasai (W)-401 202 Wagle Indl.Estate Thane-400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aasfa6761C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 133A

…tive evidence supports the 6 M/s. Arham Neejdeep Realtors statements, no adverse interference could be drawn only on the basis of survey statements. This legal proposition has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and other 91 ITR 18 (SC) has reiterated similar position of law. The ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Shri Amod Shivlal Shah VS ACIT in ITA.No.795/Mum/2015 has considered identical issue and held that unless further corroborative evidences supp…

DCIT - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 4984/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 351/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 4984/Mum/2017 For Ay 2014-15) M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Income Tax-9(2)(1), Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.v. Jhaveri, AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITAs No. 4984/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner of M/s. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AAACB2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ CO No. 351…

A.S.Chinmai, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 3434/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita No.3434(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri A.S.Chinmai, Prop: Sri Kanaka Jewellers, B.M.Road, Hassan Pan No.Aftpc1672C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Vijayanagar, Belur Road, Hassan Respondent Appellant By : Shri B. Sharath Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri B. Sharath Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Siddappajji, Addl.CIT

Section 133A

…see contended that the addition cannot be made on the basis of statement taken during the course of survey operations, since the said statement does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following case law:- (i) CIT Vs, S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 [SC] (ii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 [Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 [Kerala] (iv) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metl Works, [2010] 328 ITR 384 [del]) 4 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and enhanced the addition to R.83.33 lakhs with the following observations; “The aforesaid submission was…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…/2003 - IT (Inv.' II) dt. 10.03.2003 and Instruction No. F. No. 286/98/2013 - IT (Inv. II) dt. 18.12.2014 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. b) In any case, in view of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s. S. Kader Khan - [(2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)] a statement taken during a survey proceeding is not binding / conclusive piece of evidence. This judgement has been followed in many cases thereafter, as already referred by the Appellant in its submission. c) Even otherwise, no blind reliance could have been placed on the statement of these two employees/ as is apparent from their statemen…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…admission made during such statement cannot be made the basis of any admission.” 18.1. It is also important to note that the above judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein the head note reads as under: ITA Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (by assessee) and ITA No.1689/Ahd/2015 (by revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year - 2008-09 36 Section 133A of the Income Act, 1961 - Survey - Whether Section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath; so statement recorded under section…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 975/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

…d corroborated by the finding of Ld. AO that actual yield on the date of survey was approx. 83%. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in CIT V/s S.Khader Khan [300 ITR 157] as confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 352 ITR 480. Reliance was also placed on CBDT Comm. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10/03/2003 to submit that departmental authorities were not be obtain confessions as to undisclosed income but concentrate on the collection of evidence of undisclosed income. 4.5 The assessee also controverted the manner of yield estimation as adopted by Ld. AO and submitted t…

Best Paper Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

ITA 772/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

The Income Tax Officer, Katra vs. Smt. Madhu Gupta, Reasi (J & K)

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 643/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 643/Asr./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Madhu Gupta, Ward-2(5), L/H Of Late Shri. Subash Chander Katra Gupta (Deceased), Prop. M/S Neeraj Shawl Emporium & New Tridev Hotel, Shive Khori, Reasi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahjpg2341N Assessee By : Shri. P. N. Arora, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Charan Dass, Dr Date Of Hearing :15.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Jammu Dated 23.06.2016. 2. The Sole Issue Involved Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.85,98,690/- On Account Of Undisclosed Income Surrendered During Survey.

For Appellant: Shri. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass, DR

Section 133A

…essing Officer only on the basis of a statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey which was not corroborated with the material found during the course of survey. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) held that the statement recorded during the course of survey has non- evidentiary value. 13. Further, we find that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is also supported by the opinion of the CBDT expressed vide F.No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003. We, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Peccadily Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 4029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…1 ITAs 4030-4032 & 4029 & 4027/Mum/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI Before Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND Shri Ravish Sood (JUDICIAL MEMBER) - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12 DCIT, Cent.Cir.8(4), Mumbai vs Sitara Builders Pvt Ltd Govardhan Bldg No.2, Dr Parekh Road, Prarthana Samaj, Mumbai PAN : AABCS4975L APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT - 2011-12 DCIT, Cent.Cir.8(4), Mumbai vs M/s Peccadally Estate Pvt Ltd Govardhan Bldg No.2, Dr Parekh Road, Prarthana Samaj, MumbaI AAECP3575N APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT - 2011-12 DCIT, Cent.Cir.8(4), Mumbai vs M/s Mindset Estate Pvt Ltd Govardhan B…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Shreeji Sulz Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 669/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 507/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shreeji Sulz Private Limited, cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. G-19-20, RIICO Ind. Area, Pur Central Circle, Road, Bhilwara. Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCS 9248 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 669/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2013-14 cuke A.C.I.T., Shree…

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Mukesh B. Sharma, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6249/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Mukesh B Sharma Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2) Room No. 428, 4Th Floor Bldg. No. F, C202, Akshay Mittal Indl. Estate, 1St Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan – Aahps1995D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Respondent By: Shri D.G. Pansari Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30-07- 2018 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-36, Mumbai & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Though The Assessee Had Raised Various Grounds Of Appeal, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Upholding The Action Of The Ld Ao In Treating The Sale Consideration Of Shares Of Rs 7,88,77,854/- As Bogus & Consequentially Denying The Exemption Claimed By The Assessee U/S 10(38) Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Interconnected Issue Involved Therein Is As To Whether The Ld Cita Was Justified In Confirming The Addition Made U/S 69C Of The Act In The Sum Of Rs.39,43,893/- Towards Commission On Sale Proceeds Of Shares In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. ModiFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member and Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Shri Mukesh B Sharma Income Tax Officer-11(3)(2) Room No. 428, 4th Floor Bldg. No. F, C202, Akshay Mittal Indl. Estate, 1st Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 PAN – AAHPS1995D Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Respondent by: Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing: 08.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, AM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed aga…

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 376/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishihonda Motor Co. Ltd, Vs. Dcit(International Srbc & Associates, Taxation) 4Th & 5Th Floor, Plot No. 2B, Circle-Noida, Tower-2, Sector-126, Noida Noida Pan: Aacch3050J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri kishore kunal AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeepkumar Mishra SR

Section 143Section 147

…the conclusion that their existed a PE of the Appellant in India while relying on the statements of expatriate employees of Honda Cars India Ltd. (HCIL) which were inadmissible evidence in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khader Khan Son (254 CTR 228)(SC). 3.2 That the AO/DRP erred in coming to the conclusion that expatriate employees working in Honda Cars India Ltd were working on behalf of the Appellant and as such controlled the day-to-day functioning of HCIL in terms of technology, economic and other control. 3.3 That the AO/DRP completely failed to appreciate that in terms of Article 5(9…

Honda Trading Asia Co. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6017/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri kishore kunal AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeepkumar Mishra SR

Section 143Section 147

Raj Karan Dassani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2346/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 16Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…rial collected and statement recorded during the survey u/s 133A of the Act are not conclusive piece of evidences by itself. This decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs S Khader Khan Sons reported in 352 ITR 480 (SC) , wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court held as under:- "Heard Counsel on both the sides. Leave granted. The civil appeal filed by the department pertains to Assessment Year 2001-02. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, this civil appeal is dismissed. " We find that the sole basis of ld AO making this disallowance of deduction u/s…

Abdulkader Inayathusein Bohari, Dhule vs. Income-Tax Officer, Dhule

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1214/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1214/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 133A

…value of inventory at Rs.15,34,777/-. He also admitted that he purchased two vehicles, namely, Tavera and Tata Sumo and 1/4th of the price was contributed by him. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that statement u/s.133A has no evidentiary value because the Authorised officer cannot administer oath but only record a statement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that no admission made during such statement, by itself, be made the basis for addition. On a pertinent query, the ld. AR candidly 4 Mr. Abdulkader Inayathusein…

Shri Heera Chand Jain, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 964/JPR/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (ACIT)

Section 131ASection 133ASection 139Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…he penalty/s 271(1)(c) of the Act when the said addition is not based on any incriminating material. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the various decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported 300 ITR 157. The ld. AR has thus submitted that the statement recorded U/s 133A has no evidentiary value and therefore, the addition made by the AO on the basis of the surrendered income made U/s 133A of the Act cannot be a basis for penalty U/s 271(i…

M/S M.S. Associates, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 4364/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri SatyajeetFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…trial Co. ltd.[2015] 378 ITR 351 (Del) I.T.A. No.4364/DEL/2015 11 6. ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd. [2012] 348 ITR 299 (SC) 52 - 53 7. Meadow Infradevelopers P. Ltd. v ITO [2018] 93 taxmann.com 397 (Del) 8. CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) 9. Ms/.Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (SC) 10. Bharti Infratel Ltd. v. DCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi)” 10. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before us qua the issue of reopening u/s.148. Here, in this case, as stated above the original a…

M/S Shyam Sunder Co. Jewellers (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.-2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 342/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godarai.T.A. No.341 & 342/Kol/2019 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 35Section 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…