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 366,314 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Ramakrishna Poultry P Ltd, Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross-Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2349/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Quadir HoseynFor Respondent: Ms.Sheila Parthasarthy

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…Court held that “a statement recorded u/s.133A(3) of the Act does not have any evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement can’t be made the basis of addition“ which decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2012] 352 ITR 480 (SC). The Ld.CIT(A) also found substance in the assertion of the assessee that the closing stock shown in its book maintained in the ‘Tally Accounting Software’ as on 31.01.2018 taken note by the survey team was nothing but opening stock reported by the assessee in its books of accounts as on 01.04.2017 [i.e. Rs.2,12,95,918/-] which was the s…

DCIT Cent. Circle 1(3), Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…as not evidentiary value and the Income- tax Officer was well aware of this." This judgment in Paul Mathews (supra) was relied on by the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son and was confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue (352 ITR 480). It is also seen that AO has not found any defect in the books of accounts of the appellant. The AO has accepted all the figures such as purchases, sales etc. as appearing in the books of accounts. No evidence of any sale/purchase outside books has been notice by the AO. The AO never felt the need to reject the appellant's books of accounts. The…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Cent. Circle-1(3), Central Circle, Aayakar Bhawan, Nagpur vs. Mor Alloys Private Limited, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/NAG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…has hol evidentiary value and the Income-tax Officer was well aware of this." This judgment in Paul Mathews (supra) was relied on by the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan Son and was confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue (352 ITR 480). It is also seen that AO has not found any defect in the books of accounts of the appellant. The AO has accepted all the figures such as purchases, sales ele, as appearing in the books of accounts. No evidence of any sale/purchase outside books has been notice by the AO. The AO never felt the need to reject the appellant's Books of accounts. The…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Madurai vs. Colombo Stores, Karaikudi

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1413/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1413/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Acit M/S Colombo Stores बनाम/ Central Circle-2, 79/1, Kallukatti East, Vs. Madurai. Karaikudi, Sivagangai-630 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Tan No. Aaffc-8405-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram (Advocate) – Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 144

…heir return of income, duly admitted the rental Income from the firm and the land & building details were duly reflected in the balance sheet of the partners. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader Khan & Sons (352 ITR 480) to conclude that addition based on statement recorded during survey u/s 133A was not legally tenable. It was further observed by Ld. CIT(A) that AO did not make any independent enquiry or findings but proceeded to complete the assessment based upon the admissions made by the managing partner of the assessee-firm during the course of survey. No a…

Prakash Kanaiyalal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)0-11, Pune

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2715/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: passing the order under appeal, resulting in violation of wolf settled Principle of Natural Justice and hence the impugned order under appeal is illegal and bad in law and liable to be quashed/annulled.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Prakash Kanaiyalal Jain Shop No.2, Hira Moti Nagar, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), Thane – 400604. Maharashtra. [PAN: ADTPJ5886B] …………. Appellant Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Thane. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Mahesh Pamnani Date Conclusion of hearing : 20.01.2025 Pronouncement of order : 21.01.2025 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Asse…

Laxmi Narayan Packaging Industries, Guwahati vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Guwahati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/GTY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 80

…69 to 83). Further reliance was placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and also upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of P.C.I.T. Page 6 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 60/GTY/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Laxmi Narayan Packaging Industries. Vs. ARN Infrastructure Ltd. 2023 (8) TMI 386 in support of the claim that the provisions of Section 133A of the Act do not empower any IT authority to examine any…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.197/SRT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Shah Maganlal Gulabchand The ACIT, Vs. Choksi, Central Circle – 2, 3/138, Parsi Sheri, Navapura, Surat Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS5582Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.224/SRT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) The ACIT, Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Central Circle – 2, Vs. Choksi, Surat 3/138, Parsi Sheri, Navapura, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरस…

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

ITA 935/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy Ahamed Brothers, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Tamil Nadu-620008. [Aahfa7608P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M : आदेश / Order S. No. A Appeal Nos. B Ays C Appel-Lant D Cit(A) Order Details E Respondent F

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C BENCH: CHENNAΙ श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.934/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.935/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ CO72/Chny/2024, निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy Ahamed Brothers, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Tamil Nad…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Trichy vs. Ahamed Brothers, Trichy

In the result, the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 934/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.934/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.935/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ Co72/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 133ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.934/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.935/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 आयकर अपील सं./ CO72/Chny/2024, निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-2020 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahamed Brothers, Central Circle-1, No.21/1, Singarathope, Trichy Trichy Tamil Na…

M/S. Sbs Brothers, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1895/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Brothers, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [Pan: Aahfs6119B]

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1895/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/s.SBS Brothers, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.44/55, Strotten Muthiah Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-79 Chennai [PAN: AAHFS6119B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर…

M/S. Sbs Agencies, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1894/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S.Sbs Agencies, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [Pan: Aalfs9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anita, Add.Cit सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anita, Add.CIT

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्वनेत्र रवि, न्यावयक सदस्य एवं श्री अविताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1894/Chny/2024 निर्ाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/s.SBS Agencies, Deputy Commissioner of Income No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Tax Sowcarpet, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai-600 079. Chennai [PAN: AALFS9107M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri D.Anand, Advocate प्रत्…

DCIT - Circle4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastructure and Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2631/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahinsa Infrastructure & Room No. 678, Developers Limited, 6Th Floor, Vs. 60, Mulji Jetha Building, Aayakar Bhavan, 185/187, Princess Street, M.K. Road, Marinelines, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Aadca3891R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi & Ms. Dinkle Hariya For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 10-10-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 131Section 133A

…er was made in the statement taken u/s. 133A of the Act and the said statement does not have any evidentiary value. In support of this contention, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S Khader Khan (352 ITR 480)(SC). However, the AO rejected the above said contention of the assessee, relying on the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble 3 Allahabad High Court in the case of Sanjeev Agarwal vs. Income tax Settlement Commission (2015)(56 taxmann.com 214)(All) and other decisions, where in the Hon‟ble High Courts have held that the retraction of the statement w…

Hotel Deepak, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3, Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3562/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Rohra, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, Sr. A.R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 250

…specified that the statement recorded u/s.133A of the Act from the partner of the firm was the sole basis of the impugned addition made by the A.O. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2013] 352 ITR 480 (SC) which held that the statement recorded u/s. 133A has no evidentiary value and that the same cannot be the only basis for making the addition. The assessee has also specified that the difference in the amount declared by the 7 M/s. Hotel Deepak partner of the assessee firm and that of return income was due to the expenses of the VAT payments…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. Pragati Agri Products Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट"य एवं "ी "द"प कुमार चौबे, "या"यक सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member &Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1708/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata Vs. Pragati Agri Products Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AABCP 4702 A) ( अपीलाथ" ) Respondent / ""यथ" Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 16.10.2024 क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 08.11.2024 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri Sunil Surana, A.R "नधा"रती क" ओर से For the Resp…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1358/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…l support from the cases relied upon by the appellant and also the cases relied on by me which are as under:- 1) Paul Matthews 263 ITR 101 (Ker) - Relied on by the appellant 2) S. Kahder Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mds) - Relied on by the appellant 3) S. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) - Relied on by the appellant 4) DCIT VS. Bansal Credits Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi (2016) 74Taxmann.com 224 (Delhi IΤΑΤ) 6.6 Considering the above judicial pronouncements relied on by the undersigned on the core issue of validity of retraction of the admitted disclosure of Rs.25,00,00,000/- and making subsequent addition of Rs…

Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1247/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

Shri Avinashi Vadivel Nageswaran, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Erode

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1109/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1109/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Avinashi Vadivel Nageswaran Ito बनाम/ 60, Velayutham Road, Ward -2(3), Vs. Anthiyur, Erode Dt – 638 501. Erode. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Tan/Gir No.Abhpn-0151-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) (Erode) – Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita ( Addl.Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) (Erode) – Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita ( Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…ated basis. There is no material on record to indicate that the assessee has made that kind of investment. The statement recorded during survey u/s 133A do not bind the assessee as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cited case of S. Khader Khan (25 Taxmann.com 413). The same is rebuttable one. The assessee, in our considered opinion, by furnishing the cash flow statements and loan sanction letters, duly substantiated its case to a great extent. Considering the fact that the property is a joint one and with a view to put an end to litigation, we restrict the impugned additions to the extent of Rs.10…

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…material to show that the Long-Term Capital Gain derived by the appellant from purchase and sale of above two shares is bogus in nature. In this regard he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. S Kadar Khan & Sons (2012) 254 CTR 228 (S) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajjam Chinna Yellappa and Ors. vs. ITO [(2015) 370 ITR 671 (AP)]. The learned Page 14 of 26 ITA No 450 of 2022 and SA NO 1 of 2024 Ishoo Narang Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition towards Long-Term Ca…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ied upon to draw any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE…