CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan

404 ITR 433High Court2018#2344 most cited

What is CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan authority for?

Additions made in a block assessment cannot be deleted solely on the ground that no opportunity for cross-examination was granted, if such an opportunity was never sought by the assessee at any time.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan · block assessment · cross-examination opportunity · Andaman Timber Industries · M. Pirai Choodi · natural justice · revenue · tribunal deletion

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionsection 23(1)(a)section 23(1)annual letting valuesection 245d(4)section 131(1)annual valueincome tax settlement commissionsection 65bsection 65on-moneyloose papers

Judgments citing CIT v. S.V. Sreenivasan

Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -8(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1736/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Solapur vs. M/S. Beekay Enterprises, Solapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Solapur vs. M/S. Beekay Enterprises, Solapur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1688/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Ss Techno Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1404/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Ss Techno Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1403/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Sukhlal Sajan Patil, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1365/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chandrashekhar Ashok Joshi, Nashik

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2991/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…29 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 32. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the block assessment on the ground that no opportunity t…

Assistant Commissoner of Income-Tax vs. Thermax Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 714/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…R 129 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the Thermax Ltd., block assessment on the ground that no…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 509/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Thermax Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, 14, Mumbai Pune Road, Pune Wakdewadi, Pune – 411 003 Pan : Aaact3910D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 133A

…R 129 (Delhi), following M. Pirai Choodi (supra), has restored the matter in the absence of the AO granting opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, which formed the basis for addition. 12. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. S.V. Sreenivasan (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Madras) considered both the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, Andaman Timber Industries (supra) and M. Pirai Choodi (supra) and decided similar issue raised through question no.2 in favour of the Revenue by holding that the Tribunal was not right in deleting additions made in the Thermax Ltd., block assessment on the ground that no…