CIT v. Valimohmad Ahmadbhai

134 ITR 214High Court1982#12159 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 1962Section 1961Section 115BBESection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154

Issues it is cited on

rule 46asection 25section 250document

Judgments citing CIT v. Valimohmad Ahmadbhai

JAYESH JADAVJI THAKKAR,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 930/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.930/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Jayesh Jadavji Thakkar, Vs. The Ito, 402, Paradise Apartment, Mahadev Ward - 3(2)(1), Faliu, Katargam, Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ajmpt4689H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

…before the AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the ITO except in the circumstances set out therein. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Valimohmad Ahmadbhai, 134 ITR 214 (Gujarat) held that mere fact that notice of hearing of appeal was given to the AO would not meet the requirements of Rule 46A(3) where assessee produced additional evidence in his appeal to the AAC. Since something adverse to the ITO was sought to be done in the course of appeal by way of augmenting the record, the ITO ought to have been heard a…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ADAJAN, SURAT vs. NITA RAVI KHANDELWAL, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 813/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.813/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Nita Ravi Khandelwal, Ward – 1(3)(1), 33, Pratistha Awas, Ghod Dod Road, Surat Surat – 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agsps2820A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Jaikishan Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing 13/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2025

Section 250(2)Section 68

…before the AAC, any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than evidence produced by him during the course of proceedings before the ITO except in the circumstances set out therein. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Valimohmad Ahmadbhai, 134 ITR 214 (Gujarat) held that mere fact that notice of hearing of appeal was given to the AO would not meet the requirements of Rule 46A(3) where assessee produced additional evidence in his appeal to the AAC. Since something adverse to the ITO was sought to be done in the course of appeal by way of augmenting the record, the ITO ought to have been heard a…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ACORE CONSULTING PVT LTD, DLEHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

…ations in the case of Ramgopal Ganpatrai Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, in the case of Byramji Co. v. Commissioner of Income tax and in the case of Karamchand v. Commissioner of Income tax." 10. In the case of CIT v. Vali Mohamed Ahmedbhai 134 ITR 214 (Guj) Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have held that if any additional evidence submitted by an assessee is accepted behind the back of the assessing officer and the assessing officer is not given proper opportunity to rebut the same, it would amount to the violation of the principles of natural justice…… 11. The proposition that the first appellate…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S BENGALURU LEISURE PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 752/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Mukeshkumar Jain, C.A
Section 68

…n support, Ld.AR placed reliance on following decisions: • Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs Subash Chander Aggarwal reported in 172 ITR 166 • Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs.Volimohemad Ahmedbhai, reported in 134 ITR 214 • Decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Smt.Mohinder Kaur vs.Central GovernmentI reported in 104 ITR 20 6. We have perused all decisions relied by Ld.AR. 6.1. We note that, in decision by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in case of CIT vs Subash Chander Aggarwal(supra), issue was in relation to non-granting of cross-examination. In our…

SHRI RAMBADAL DHUMAN YADAV,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(6),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1846/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings”. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submits That As The Assessment Was Framed Ex-Parte, Due To Factors Beyond The Control Of The Assessee, It Was A Fit Case In Which The Additional Evidences Should Have Been Admitted By The I Ta N O. 1 8 4 6/ Ah D 2 01 4 R A Mb A D Al D H U Mu N Y A Da V Vs . I To Ass E Ss Me N T Y Ea R : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 2 Of 9

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…acts we are of the view that filing of additional evidence before the CIT(A) was clearly covered by clause (c ) above. A view may indeed be taken, as taken by Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CITv. Vali Mohd Ahmed Bhai [1982] 27 CTR (Guj.) 97 : [1982] 134 ITR 214 (Guj.), that the CIT(A) cannot admit any additional evidence placed under rule 46A(1) unless the ITO has been allowed a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence, but it is not necessary to consider that aspect of the matter since in the case before us the Assessing Officer not only had an opportunity to examine all the evidence filed by the…

DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. TILAKNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Departmental appeal is allowed

ITA 2505/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Income Tax, Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Indl. Assurance Central Circle-1(1), Room No.903, 9Th Floor, Vs. Bldg., Old Cgo Building, J.D. Tata Marg, M.K. Road, Church Gate, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaact6047R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 145ASection 14ASection 254

…or the remand report. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not followed any procedure and without following any procedure he has deleted the addition which is not as per law. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Valimohmed Ahmedbhai 134 ITR 214 (Guj) wherein it is held that where the assessee produced the additional evidence in his appeal the ITO must be offered opportunity to oppose it and test the additional evidence and countering the effect thereof to produce the evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, respectfully following the decision, we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) is not justif…

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…es (a), (b), (c) & (d) of clause 1 of the Rule was satisfied, provisions of clause (2) were not followed and AO was not given any opportunity under clause (3) of the said Rule. Reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Vali Mohmed Ahamad Bhai (Guj.) 134 ITR 214 ACIT Vs. Mohar Singh (IT AT, Jd.) 32 DTR 497 CIT Vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd, (Raj.) 227 ITR 345 Velji Deoraj & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 68 ITR 708 Jyotsna Suri Vs. DCIT (ITAT, Del) 61ITD 139 Page 3 of 34 A.K.Babu Khan Vs. CIT (AP) 102 ITR 757 DCIT Vs. Vira Construction Co. (ITAT,Mum, TM) 61 ITD 33 Ramprasad Sharma Vs. CIT (All.)119 ITR 867 Dinesh B. Parikh V…

Commissionr of Income Tax vs. M/s Avanthi Warehousing Services Limited

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly

ITTA/608/2015HC Telangana29 Jun 2016

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) More Particularly To Paragraph (C) Thereof, Wherein The Assessee Stated That They Had Submitted Vouchers & Payment Details For Rs.37,30,426/-

Section 143(3)Section 260

…te: 29.06.2016 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ITTA.No.608 of 2015 Date:29.06.2016 JSU [1] (Judgment in ITTA.No.119 of 2015 dated 14.12.2015) [2] 134 ITR 214 (Guj)…

CIT v. Valimohmad Ahmadbhai (134 ITR 214) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax