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

Golla Narayana Rao, Vijayawada vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

ITA 380/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Oct 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 Respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] Vijayawada (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.433/Viz/2017, 499/Viz/2017 -503/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Ys : 2012-13, 2008-09, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 Respectively) Deputy.Commissioner Of Vs. Golla Narayana Rao Income Tax Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection Nos.80-85/Viz/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.433/Viz/2017,499-503/Viz/2017 Respectively)’ Golla Narayana Rao Deputy.Commissioner Of Flat No.Ff-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax Vijaya Shraddha Towers Circle-2(1) Moghalrajpuram Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan : Ahqpg3076R] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Ch.Sanjeev, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2018 05.10.2018 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ch.Sanjeev, DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री िी. दुगााराि,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस. सुन्दर ससह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.380/Viz/2017& I.T.A.No.487-489/Viz/2017 (धििाारण िर्ा/A.Ys: 2012-13, 2008-09,2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively) Golla Narayana Rao Asst.Commissioner of Flat No.FF-4, D.No.32-15/1-16 Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Vijaya Shraddha Towers Vijayawada Moghalrajpuram Vs. Asst.Commissioner of Vijayawada Income Tax, Range-2 [PAN…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1448/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel

Section 133ASection 68

…mission 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…

The Asstt. Commr. Income Tax, Cir.-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Cast & Blower Co. (Gujarat) P. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 750/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 750/Rjt/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr.D.R

Section 292C

…at without any corresponding independent evidence, no additions can be made based on mere statements recorded during course of survey action. As correctly relied upon by the authorized representative, the Apex Court in the case of S. Khadar Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) has laid down the judicial principle on the issue in question, that the statements recorded during survey action has no evidentiary value, unless, the same is backed up by an independent and corroborative evidence. Therefore, it is argued by the authorized representative that the statement of Shri Dineshbhai Pedhadia, the director of the com…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Karan R. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Syed Nadeem

Section 133(6)Section 40A(2)(b)

…argued that the survey team has recorded a statement on oath from the appellant knowing pretty well that no such statement on oath can be recorded during survey as held by the Honorable Supreme Court in the ce of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). The appellant‟s AR further argued that the AO in paragraph no. 4 of his assessment order has referred to i statement of oath recorded on 08.03.2013 wherein the AO states that the assessee his confirmed the use of laptop by him. It is stressfully mentioned that the statement on oath referred by the AO was never signed by the appellant as the…

M/S Tovinakeri Jayaraju Brahmaraju, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2300/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, H., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 148

…2018 Page 4 of 6 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that statement recorded during the survey cannot be the basis to make any addition and in this regard relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son, 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, Civil Appeal No.4228/2006, judgment dated 2.9.2015. In the first decision cited by the ld. counsel for the assessee, it has been held that statement recorded at the time of survey u/s. 133A of the Act cannot be the sole basis to make an addition in…

M/S Tovinakeri Jayaraju Brahmaraju, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2299/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, H., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 148

M/S Tovinakeri Jayaraju Brahmaraju, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2298/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, H., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Sukumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 148

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3236/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, बनाम/ Bhavan, M.K.Road, Darukhana, Reay Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Mumbai 400 086 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B Assessment Year: 2009-10 Jaydeep Profiles P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer 6(3)(2), 142/7 Lakdi Bunder Road, R No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar बनाम/ Darukhana, Reay Road, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai 400 086 Mumbai 400 020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacj8998B 2 & 2698/Mum/2016

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 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. 34 & 2698/Mum/2016 Jaydeep Profiles P.Ltd 4.28. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt.…

Jaydeep Profiles Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 6 (3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2698/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

Smt. Savita Bhura, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 12/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…essee that the statement recorded on oath during the survey cannot be the sole basis for adverse finding 3 Smt. Savita Bhura, AY 2013-14 against the assessee. For this we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 (SC) wherein it has been held that section 133A (survey) does not empower any income tax authorities to examine any person on oath, hence any such statement lacks evidentiary value and any admission made during the survey cannot by itself be made the basis of addition. We therefore hold that the statement of Shri N.P.Surekha recorded on oath duri…

B.Surendra Reddy, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2764/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 16.07.2018

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 148Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ (एस एम सी) "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2764/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri B. Surendra Reddy, Vs The ACIT, No.22/15, Avvayar Street, Central Circle – 3(1), Rajaram Mehta Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 029. PAN:AAIPR7169J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shr…

Mohd Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Mohd. Hasan Abdul Gafoor Momin, Income Tax Officer, 430/2, Kotwal Shah Dargha Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Road, Bhiwandi, District- Thane, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. Maharashtra-421308 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aekpm0354F

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254

…four years will be applicable only in a situation when there is full disclosure of material facts. Our attention was invited to para-5 (page-6) and para 5.1 of the impugned order. In reply, the Ld. counsel for the 268 ITR 339 (Bom.) and CIT vs S Kader Khan 352 ITR 480 (Supreme Court). 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that a survey action under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s M. H. Corporation, sole proprietary concern of the assessee, on 25/01/2006. During the course of survey, the ce…

Ghosh Bishayee & Associates, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Burdwan

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1550/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)

…atement recorded under coercion has no basis and accordingly rejected. 2.3(iiii) The appellant has also objected the statement recorded under section 133A on oath placing reliance on Hon'ble High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan & Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480. This issue has been examined by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Jain v. Income Tax Officer - 11(2)-2, [2014] 45 ttaxmann.com 442(Bombay) Mumbai and held that statement under section 133A does not lose its evidentiary value merely because it is made on oath. In the cited case Hon'ble High Court held as under: ‘4. We shall…

Idhasoft Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5139/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…he 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. 36 5139 & 5338/Mum/2016 Idhasoft Ltd. 2.31. In the case of Aradhna Estate Pvt. Lt…

ITO, WD-37(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eastern Transport Services, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 733/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 733/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-37(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Eastern Transport Services [Pan: Aacfe 3622 J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Dubey, Advocate

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…that the statement obtained U/s.133A of the Act would not automatically bind the assessee/or it does not have any evidentiary value. This decision of the High Court has since been confirmed by the Supreme Court in this case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan son (2012) 254 CTR 228(SC.). Thus even if the statement recorded during the course of the survey is not of any evidentiary value, it can be used to 'support' the findings of the survey. But in the instant case there are no documents or details with the A.O. suggesting any evasion of tax. The sole argument of the A.O. is that Sri Ajay Kumar Jain had been entrusted with…

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 1569/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133A

…x-partner and not a partner of the assessee firm at the time of survey. Further he submitted that the statement taken during the course of survey does not have evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S Khader Khan Sons (2013)(352 ITR 480) affirming the decision rendered by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Khader khan Sons (2008)(300 ITR 157). He submitted that the assessee has implied retracted from the statement by not disclosing the additional income in the original return of income. Subsequently, assessee filed a detailed explanation on 24.12.2007 explaining as…

ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Meenakshi N Shah, Mumbai

ITA 7082/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit 5(2)(2) Meridian Chem Bond Mumbai Purchase Ltd., बनाम/ 903 Raheja Centre, Free Vs. Press Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. Aaacr1789G

Section 68

…he 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 65 Meridian Chem Bond P Ltd. & Meenakshi N Shah ITA No.7385 & 7082/Mum/2016 & C.O. No.86 & 85/Mum/2018 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 n…

Sh. Didar Singh S/O Sh. Prem Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)

Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09 Sh. Didar Singh Vs. Dy. CIT S/o Sh. Prem Singh Ward-1, Phagwara Nakodar Chowk, Canara Bank Distt. Kapurthala Building, Hadiabad Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala PAN:BBYPS2242G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 05.03.2018 Date of pronouncement: 29.05.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Asse…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3006/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

…ition was merely on the basis of ITA Nos.2313 to 2315 and 3004 to 34 3006/Mum/2016 M/s Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd. 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. 2.28. It is noted that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yuvraj v…

Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3005/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)