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 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 341/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1917/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik
Section 131Section 147

…dered the facts relating to absence of the corroborative evidences and restricted the disallowance to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1916/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik
Section 131Section 147

…dered the facts relating to absence of the corroborative evidences and restricted the disallowance to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ashapura Rubber Udyog, Nashik

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1915/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri P. S. Naik
Section 131Section 147

…dered the facts relating to absence of the corroborative evidences and restricted the disallowance to 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. In this regard, the CIT(A) relied heavily on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Khader Khan sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court judgement in the case of Paul Mathews & sons vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and also relied on the CBDT Instruction No.286/2/2003 dated 10.03.2003 and appreciated the reasons for retraction relating to the offer of entire bogus purchases income of the assessee during the proceedings u/s 131 of the Act. 5. In the…

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, 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. 690/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. (Formerly known as M/s Stone Circle-2, Age Ltd.), Jaipur. Gram Siapura, Diggi Malpura Road, Post- Shikarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCS 9876 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shr…

Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Burhanpur vs. ACIT, Khandwa

In the result appeal the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. M/S. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan Abxpt0602K Revenue By Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, Cas Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14A

…Shriram Toshiniwal आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Shriram Toshniwal, Asstt. Commissioner of Prop. M/s. Gayatri Vs. Income Tax, Enterprises, Udyog Nagar, Khandwa Burhanpur (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN ABXPT0602K Revenue by Shri K.C. Selvamani, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Maneesh Vaidya & Ms. Preeti Patwa, CAs Date of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.04.2019 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal is file…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. India Fashions Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan-Ld.DRFor Respondent: Jitendra Jain- AR
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…oceedings. It was further noted that these statements made during survey proceedings, on standalone basis, would have no evidentiary value in terms of cited decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court as confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court vide its decision reported in 352 ITR 480. Finally, the additions were deleted by making following observations: - 60. As stated earlier, no incriminating evidences were detected either during the course of the survey or the assessment proceedings with regard to the merchant trading activity and the wind turbine project of the appellant. The addition was made by the A.O. relying solely o…

ITO 13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vulvan Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4137/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Years: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Room No.227,02Nd Floor, A Wingh, Corporate Avenue, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Raod, Vs. M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400063 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K Assessment Years: 2008-09 M/S Vulvan Traders, 805, Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), A Wingh, Corporate Room No.227,02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Avenue, Sonawala Raod, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Goregaon East, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400063 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacv1603K

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 2.30. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119…

Siddhraj Developers Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH ‘D’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Siddhraj Developers P.Ltd.117, Vs. ACIT, Gandhinagar Cir. 1st Floor, Suman City Gandhinagar. Sector 11, Gandhinagar. PAN : AAHCS 6960 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri T.P. Hemani, AR Revenue by : Shri Ranjan Kumar Singh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 07/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 09 /01/201…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Belagavi vs. Shri Girish Prakash Vernekar, Belagavi

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection by

ITA 227/PAN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Y. V. Raviraj
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ITA No. 227/Pan./2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer, Shri Girish Prakash Vernekar No. Ward-1(2), F. K. Commercial Complex, 264, Mahalasa Krupa, Shastri Nagar, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Road, Vs. Vadagaon, Belagavi Opposite: Civil Hospital, Belagavi-590 001 PAN/GIR No. ADNPP 5618 F (Revenue) : (Assessee) & CO No. 26/Pan./2017 (Arising out of ITA No.227/Pan./2017) (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Girish Prakash Vernekar No. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), F. K. 264, Mahalasa Krupa, Shastri Nagar…

Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 2159/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Vs. Ito, B-174, Ground Floor, Ward-61(5), Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110092. Pan: Aagpa1651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Ganguli, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2018 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Doctor & Filed His Return Of Income On 30Th March, 2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,77,510/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 On The Ground That The Assessee Has Received Cash Payment Of Rs.2 Lakh During F.Y. 2008-09 Which Was Largely Unaccounted For As Per The Information Received From The Dcit, Circle 1, New Delhi. The Assessee, In Response To The Same, Submitted That The Original Return Filed On 20Th March, 2010 May Be Treated As Return Filed In Response To Notice U/S 148. On Being Asked By The Assessee To Issue The Reasons Recorded, The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Ganguli, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, Sr.DR
Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself be made the basis for addition. He submitted that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the above addition was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 352 ITR 480. He submitted that similar view has been held in the case of K. Velayutham vs. ACIT in Writ Petition No.33917 to 33920 of 2017 and in the case of P. Mathews & Sons vs. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). Referring to the statement recorded by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, he submitted that Shri Chug…

Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for years under consideration stand allowed on legal question raised

ITA 6019/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: S/Shri Tarun Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 9(1)(i)

…onclusion 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 S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 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) of…

Honda Motor Co. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, appeals filed by assessee for years under consideration stand allowed on legal question raised

ITA 6018/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Smt. Beena A Pillai

For Appellant: S/Shri Tarun Gulati, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 9(1)(i)

…onclusion 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 S. Qadar Khan & Sons (254 CTR 228) 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) of…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2580/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…e, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 5.26. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (G…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2579/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…e, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 5.26. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (G…

ACIT Non Corp Circle 1 (1) Formerly Known As Business Circle 1, Chennai vs. M/S Deolite Haskins & Sells, Chennai

ITA 2578/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…e, the Hon’ble Court held that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was not permissible. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228 (SC), affirming the decision of Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.), the whole addition was made solely on the basis of statement u/s 133A and no other material was found, in that situation, it was held that the such statement has no evidentiary value. 5.26. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 119 (G…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

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

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…Sons vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 263 ITR 101 (Ker) ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 50 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Mad). (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC). The ld. counsel has referred to the series of decisions on this point that the statement recorded during the survey has not evidentiary value in absence of any corroborating/documentary evidence. He has also referred to the Instruction File No. 286/2003 dated 10/03/2003 as well as the Instruction No. File No. 286/98/2013 dated 18/03/2014…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…Sons vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 263 ITR 101 (Ker) ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 50 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT (ii) Commissioner of Income-tax vs. S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Mad). (iii) Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC). The ld. counsel has referred to the series of decisions on this point that the statement recorded during the survey has not evidentiary value in absence of any corroborating/documentary evidence. He has also referred to the Instruction File No. 286/2003 dated 10/03/2003 as well as the Instruction No. File No. 286/98/2013 dated 18/03/2014…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s PRB Securities Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCP 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)]…

Sri Ambsa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…n’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384); CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad), and submitted that the SLP filed by Revenue against the Hon’ble Madras High Court decisions (supra) was dismissed as reported in 254 CTR 228. 6.4.1 After having heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the material on record, I find that the said statement of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode recorded during the survey on 28.08.2014 is the basis for re-opening the assessee’s case for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. It is also seen that the assessee was not confronted with the a…