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.

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 480)

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

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3004/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

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…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2315/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…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2314/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

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…

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2313/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)

…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…

Shivanand Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

In the result we uphold the order of learned CIT-A, hence these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1859/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1859 To 1864/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2012-13) Mr. Shivanand Komal Singh, Dcit, Central Circle-6 Room No.123-979, बनाम/ Mumbai Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Avfps0644A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B.N. Rao-Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin-Dr

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Rao-ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-DR

Section 131Section 153C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ई” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1859 to 1864/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 to 2012-13) Mr. Shivanand Komal Singh, DCIT, Central Circle-6 Room No.123-979, बनाम/ Mumbai Motilal Nagar No.1, Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400104 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.AVFPS0644A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri B.N. Rao-AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri V. Justin-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 07/02/20…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son - 352 ITR 480 – SC (CLPB page 336) CBDT Instruction No.F.No.286/2/2003/IT(Inv) - confession of additional income during the course of search & seizure and survey operation (CLPB page 167) On the issue that loose sheets have no evidentiary value/no corroborative material: Common Cause (A Registered Society) & Others vs. Union of India & Others - 98 CCH 28 – SC…

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner indicated above

ITA 1007/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit Cir 3 बिाम/ M/S. Rich & Royal 2N D Floor, Rani Mansion, The Raymond Shop, Murbad Road, Kalyan(W), Zojwalla Complex, V. Dist Thane 421301 Agra Road, Kalyan (W) 421301 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadfr3357G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri. Saurabh Kumar Rai

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…that since there was no tangible material found and the addition was merely on the basis of statement only then reopening I.T.A. No.1007/Mum/2016 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. If the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements discussed herei…

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…either during survey or during the assessment proceedings as has been held in a series of decisions namely; 1. Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) 2. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was complete lack of enquiry on the part of AO as the assessee furnished all the required information/material as desired by the AO during the course of assessments proceedings and secondly addition under section 68 of the Act is bad in law as has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT…

Suresh Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 5281/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhsuresh Komal Singh Dcit Central Circle 6 Mumbai. Room No. 123-979, Motilal Vs. Nagar No.1, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400104 Pan:Apmps5397D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.N. Roa (Ar) Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

For Appellant: Shri B.N. Roa (AR)For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)

Section 253Section 254(1)

…s ranging from .5% to 2% and hence I adopt 1%”. That this is on surmise without any cogent material. Learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance upon the decision of honourable apex court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. S. Kaderkhan 352 ITR 480. 8. Per Contra, learned departmental representative submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the revenue by the Tribunal decision as above. He further submitted that learned CIT-A has granted further relief apart from following the above said tribunal order. Hence, he submitted that there is no reason for the order of the learned…

Amod Shivlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 795/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh: A.Y : 2006-07

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…or that assessee was receiving on-money. The learned representative pointed out that the statement recorded u/s 133A of the Act at the time of survey has no evidentiary value as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs S. Khader Khan Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC). Furthermore, it is pointed out that the statement made during the survey was duly retracted within a period of one month by way of a communication dated 15.03.2007, a copy of which has been placed in the Paper Book at pages 18-19. Be that as it may, it has been emphasised that the return of income ought to have been accepted, which is based…

ITO, Baran vs. Ganpati Plaza, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 545/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…d. AR has submitted that when there was no material before the AO to whisper in the form of investment in construction of building than how a belief was formed by the AO. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the statement made u/s 133A has no evidentiary value. Thus, the statement recorded u/s 133A cannot be a basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Ho…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 467/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…d. AR has submitted that when there was no material before the AO to whisper in the form of investment in construction of building than how a belief was formed by the AO. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the statement made u/s 133A has no evidentiary value. Thus, the statement recorded u/s 133A cannot be a basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Ho…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 466/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…d. AR has submitted that when there was no material before the AO to whisper in the form of investment in construction of building than how a belief was formed by the AO. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 and M/s Ganpati Plaza vs. ITO submitted that the statement made u/s 133A has no evidentiary value. Thus, the statement recorded u/s 133A cannot be a basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has framed the assessment on the basis of the opinion of the DVO which cannot be the basis for reopening u/s 147 as held by the Ho…

Nav Nirman Kosh, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 12ASection 133A

…the assessee Trust was engaged in receiving donation in lieu of cash or was practicing money laundering. Only piece of material was statement recorded on oath u/s. 133A (during survey) of the Act. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Kader Khan Sons, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), has clearly laid out that section 133A of the Act does not empower any Income-tax Authorities to examine any person on oath. Hence, any such statement does not have any evidentiary value and any admission made during survey cannot by itself be made the sole basis of addition. In such a scenario, the statement of Shri Swapan Ranjan Dasgupta…

Hastimal U. Sonigara, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 78/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Hastimal U. Sonigara, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. H.Umedmal, Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aaeps7391C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Rakesh K. Parekh, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. L.Yogeshwar & Co., Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aacpp8435E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Lalit Hastimal Jain, Ito-15(1)(2), Prop. Of M/S. Sanjay Enterprises, Mumbai. 89/91, Ground Floor, Dhanji Vs. Street, Mandavi, Mumbai-400003. Pan:Aabpj4218L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…e survey. The AO has not brought on record any other corroborative material. Moreover, the stock valued by the survey team with the help of assessee was valued at Rs. 25,28,318/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khadar Khan (2012) 25 taxman.com/352 ITR 480 held that statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and the admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of admission. Thus, considering the factual and legal position discussed above, we hold that addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed income, based on the statement recorded during survey is…

Padam Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

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

ITA 297/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, DCIT - DR

Section 133A

…by the Ld. CIT(A) is the statement of the assessee recorded in survey u/s 133A. A statement recorded in survey has no evidentiary value as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 8 Shri Padam Data vs DCIT, Circle – 1,Alwar (2013) 352 ITR 480. Hence, such statement more particularly when the same stood retracted cannot be a basis for making the addition. Here it is pertinent to mention that the assessee in his affidavit filed on 30.05.2014 has explained the circumstances under which he made the surrender (PB 45-50). Further, in the statement recorded in survey, the assessee also surre…

Smt Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 52(2), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr.A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2007-08 Smt. Krishna Saha, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 18/3, Lotus Park, Ward-52(2), 2, Kolkata-700 047 Gariahat Road, (S), [Pan No.Aklps 7653 L] Kolkata-68 अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" की ओर से/By Assessee Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 20-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 25-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. A.L. Saini:- The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No. 230/Cit(A)- Xxxxiii/Ito Ward 52(2), Kol/09-10, Dated 25.07.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Vide His Order Dated 18.09.2009. 2.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.For That Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Appellate Authority Failed & Neglected To Appreciate The Facts & Merit Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.28,28,423/- As Unexplained Stock & Also An Amount Of Rs.53,167/- As Observed In The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Authority.

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "ायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Dr.A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2007-08 Smt. Krishna Saha, V/s. Income Tax Officer, 18/3, Lotus Park, Ward-52(2), 2, Kolkata-700 047 Gariahat Road, (S), [PAN No.AKLPS 7653 L] Kolkata-68 अपीलाथ" /Assessee ""थ"/Respondent .. अपीलाथ" की ओर से/By Assessee Shri Aloke Kumar Ghosh, Advocate, ""थ" की ओर से/By Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 20-12-2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 25-01-2018 आदेश/O R D E…

P.Amsa, Arakkonam vs. ITO Ward 3, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of assessment year for assessment

ITA 2388/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: 18.12.2017

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 68o

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.2387 & 2388/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 ) Smt.P.Amsa, The Income Tax officer, Vs. 15,Sakthi Vinayakar Koil Street, Ward-3, Thakkolam village, Vellore. Arakkonam 631 151. PAN AEUPA 9978 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by Advocate : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 18.12.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearin…

P.Amsa, Arakkonam vs. ITO Ward 3, Vellore

In the result, the appeal of assessment year for assessment

ITA 2387/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: 18.12.2017

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 68o

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, C/‘SMC’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी. चं" पूजार" लेखा सद"य , के सम" । BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.2387 & 2388/Mds./2017 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2012-13 ) Smt.P.Amsa, The Income Tax officer, Vs. 15,Sakthi Vinayakar Koil Street, Ward-3, Thakkolam village, Vellore. Arakkonam 631 151. PAN AEUPA 9978 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr.Salai Varun Isai Azhagan, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by Advocate : Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : 18.12.2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of hearin…

Khaitan Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018

Bench: : Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 131Section 133A

…e third party during the course of survey operation is not binding on the assessee and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of which is not tenable and placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan & Sons reported in 352 ITR 480. The said submissions of the assessee was found not acceptable to the respondent and held that the activities of the assessee are not genuine and not being carried out in accordance with the objectives of the trust. The CIT(A) cancelled the registration granted u/s 12A of the Act with effect from 01.04.2013 by holding as follows: “The submission…

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

What is CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

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

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Cir. 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vipul Impex & Infrabuild Ltd., Mumbai

Shivanand Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6, Mumbai

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Kalyan

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

Suresh Komal Singh, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6, Mumbai

Amod Shivlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai

ITO, Baran vs. Ganpati Plaza, Alwar

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

Nav Nirman Kosh, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

Hastimal U. Sonigara, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Padam Data, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

Smt Krishna Saha, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 52(2), Kolkata

P.Amsa, Arakkonam vs. ITO Ward 3, Vellore

P.Amsa, Arakkonam vs. ITO Ward 3, Vellore

Khaitan Foundation, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata