CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons.

254 CTR 2289Supreme Court of India#24143 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 250

Judgments citing CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons.

DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSK INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA Nos 3297 & 3298/Mum/2024 are dismissed

ITA 3298/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…nvestment made by the 3 companies as unexplained. In our opinion the statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)]. We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently an…

DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, ITA Nos 3297 & 3298/Mum/2024 are dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…nvestment made by the 3 companies as unexplained. In our opinion the statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)]. We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently an…

JSK INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5891/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 147Section 68

…investment made by the 3 companies as unexplained. In our opinion the statement recorded during survey has no evidentiary value unless corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assesse finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)].We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently and…

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons. (254 CTR 2289) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax