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)

Reymount Commodities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3885/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 28Section 68

…tatement has no evidentiary value and any admission made 29 Reymont Commodities P Ltd during such statement cannot by itself be made the basis for addition. Later, the judgement of Hon’ble Madras High Court has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 254 CTR 228(SC) and held that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath. In the case of Kasat Paper & Pulp Ltd vs ACIT (2000) 74 ITD 455 (Pune), it was held that there cannot be estoppels against legal principles and therefore, if the income does not accrue to the assessee, the same cannot be taxed merely on the ground that it was…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Jhandewalas Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, ground no

ITA 326/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Shalendra Sharma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 133A

…326 & 325/JP/17 & CO No. 19 & 18/JP/17 ACIT, Jaipur, vs. Jhandewalas Food Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur statement recorded during survey proceedings. The statement recorded in survey has no evidentiary value as held by Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 where it was held that section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person on oath and thus, any such statement has no evidentiary value. Further, Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Roshan Lal Lodha in DBITA No. 185/2014 vide order dated 3.11.201, after following the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs.…

Texraj Reality Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3520/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendrakumar, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘B’ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.3520/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Texraj Realty P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT (OSD), cir.8 16, 4th Floor, Agrawal Mall Ambawadi S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. PAN : AACCT 6305 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.C. Pipara, AR Revenue by : Shri Surendrakumar, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/09/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 16/11/2017 आद…

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/and डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] आयकर अपील सं"या / I.T.A No. 443/Kol/2017 "नधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kiran Kothari, (HUF) Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-35(3), Kolkata (PAN: AAGHK 9024 E) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Date of Hearing 01.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2017 Shri Miraj D.Shah For the Appellant/ अपीलाथ" Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR For the Respondent/ ""यथ" आदेश/ORDER Per Shri A…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Studio Aesthetic Health & Hospitality P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are allowed and the cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Studio Aethetic Health & Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 No.1, Home Worth, 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Revenue) : (Assessee) C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 2525 & 2526/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Studio Aethetic Health & Hospitality Dy. Cit-Central Circle-1(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 905, Old Cgo Building बनाम/ No.1, Home Worth, Annex, M. K. Road, Mumbai-20 7Th Cross Road, Gulmohar Colony, Vs. Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 056 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6615 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman : Shri Naresh Kumar With Assessee By Shri Yogesh Joijode सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.09.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objections By The Assessee Emanating Out Of The Respective Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since The Issues Are Identical & The Appeals Were Heard Together, These Are Being Consolidated & Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

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

…e cannot be sustained. For the proposition that a statement obtained on survey de hors any corroborative material, cannot lead to any addition, the ld. Counsel of the assessee placed reliance upon the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC). C.O. Nos. 232 & 233/Mum/2017 19. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has never contended before any of the authorities below that the addition has not been based upon any search material. He submitted that in both the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appe…

ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata vs. Anupam Nandi, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2037/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2037/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata -Vs- Anupam Nandi [Pan: Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1985/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anupam Nandi -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata [Pan: Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2037/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata -vs- Anupam Nandi [PAN: ABIPN 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1985/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anupam Nandi -vs- I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata [PAN: ABIPN 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DR For the Respondent : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. The…

Anupam Nandi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1985/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2037/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata -Vs- Anupam Nandi [Pan: Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1985/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anupam Nandi -Vs- I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata [Pan: Abipn 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 2037/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata -vs- Anupam Nandi [PAN: ABIPN 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1985/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anupam Nandi -vs- I.T.O., Ward-46(1), Kolkata [PAN: ABIPN 4303 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DR For the Respondent : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 10.11.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. The…

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Provogue (India) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1578/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.1578/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–2(3), Mumbai v/s M/s. Provogue India Ltd. 105/106, Provogue House Off. New Link Road ……………. Respondent Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 PAN – AABCA8524H ITA no.1584/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/s. Provogue India Ltd. 105/106, Provogue House Off. New Link Road ……………. Appellant Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 053 PAN – AABCA8524H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Inco…

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 333/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 12ASection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 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/…

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as already a justified view has been taken by the Ld

ITA 594/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…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. 2.28 If the material available on record and the judicial pronouncements discussed…

M/S Manoj Metal Udyog, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-35(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 857/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 133A

…re two deficiencies/flaw for this. Firstly, the partner is not there in the eyes of law, when the firm is not existing . Secondly, the survey team does not have power to record statement on oath. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. S. Kader Khan & Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) has held that during survey the statement cannot be taken on oath and, therefore, there is no evidentiary value given on the recorded statement on oath during survey and additions 4 Manoj Metal Udyog., AY, 2009-10 cannot be made solely on the basis of statement recorded under oath. We find that the sole basis of addition is the statement re…

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1135/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2005-06 Swanston Multiplex Cinemas Acit, Private Limited, Circle-11(1), बनाम/ 9Th Floor, Viraj Towers, W.E. R. No.467, Vs. Highway Next To Andheri Aayakar Bhavan, Flyover Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumai-400093 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan No.:-Aafcs6295K

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40

…ring that period, however, if the retraction is made within short span of time then retraction carries more weight. The assessee never alleged that the statement was recorded under duress and threat. 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, thus, under the peculiar facts in the present appeal, the cases relied upon by…

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6924/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Cit-14(1), Shri Kantilal C. Jain 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, M/S. Shailesh Jewellers बनाम/ Nariman Point, Shop No. 4, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 021 108/112, Ustad Building, Zaveri Bazar, Opp. Khara Kuwa, Mumbai-400 002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aadpj 9583 E

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ring that period, however, if the retraction is made within short span of time then retraction carries more weight. The assessee never alleged that the statement was recorded under duress and threat. 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, thus, under the peculiar facts in the present appeal, the cases relied upon by…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara

Section 69Section 69A

…ontention of the ld.AR that the statement on oath given during the survey proceedings cannot be relied as a piece of evidence in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR(SC) 228 (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) unless such statement is proved to be wrong with evidences. The ld. AR submitted that there was no materials found during the survey in corroboration of the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. Therefore, in our view to rely solely on the statement on oath would be unreasonable and unju…

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

Reymount Commodities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Jhandewalas Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

Texraj Reality Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Studio Aesthetic Health & Hospitality P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata vs. Anupam Nandi, Howrah

Anupam Nandi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-46(1), Kolkata

DCIT, CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Provogue (India) Ltd., Mumbai

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

Mithalal D Mutha, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

M/S Manoj Metal Udyog, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-35(4), Kolkata

Swanston Multiplex Cinemas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 11(1), Mumbai

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Kantilal C Jain, Mumbai

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Gopaldas Visram & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), Mumbai