Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

51 ITR 20High Court1964#2759 most cited
43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 10(38)Section 115BBESection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

violation of natural justicesection 147(a)bogus ltcgcolourable devicebogus long term capital gainshort term capital gainspenny stocksection 10(38)business connectionbest judgment assessmentlong term capital gainsshort term capital gain

Judgments citing Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…y a part of reasonable opportunity, as ruled by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mahindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector (1977) TLR 1751. Identical is the view of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), and it has been held that: "It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the IT Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross- examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural j…

CHINTAN SHAILESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-30(1)(2), NOW ITO WARD-41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 2469/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarchintan Shailesh Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Amzps2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chintan Shailesh Shah Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. PAN/GIR No. AMZPS2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orde…

AGS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,JASOLA DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (4), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2185/DEL/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ags Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H.No.47, Pocket Ii, Ward -1(4), Near Appollo Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. New Delhi-110076. Pan-Aafca1795G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Respondent By Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2024

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…t an absolute right and it Supreme Court Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 depends not only on the circumstances of the case [SC] 122 but also on the statue concerned. Hon’ble T. Devasahaya Nadar It is not an universal Rule that any evidence upon Madras High Vs CIT [1965] 51 ITR 20 which the department may rely should have been Court [Mad] subjected to cross examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there can not be any violation of natural justice. Hon’ble Nath International The right of hearing does not include a right to cross Jurisdictional Sales Vs UOI AIR 1992 examine.…

DEEN DAYAL MEDICAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. ADDL. CIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3331/CHNY/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 12A

…the seized documents, which were seized during the course of search in the premises of DD Medical College, belonging to the assessee trust. Further, in this context, it may be stated that in the decision in the case of CIT Vs T. Devasahaya Nadar vs CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20, it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that cross examination of the witness is not always necessary. The Hon'ble High Court held that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross examination. It was further held that in fairness to the assessee,…

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industr…

BHARATH HI-TECH BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,BANGALORE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1034/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Inder Paul Bansal & Sri.Vivek BansalFor Respondent: Sri.Nilanjan Dey, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153ASection 250

…the right of hearing does not include a right to cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the 8 Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Pvt.Ltd. circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it was held that "it is not a universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any. violation of natural justice. In the case of GTC Industries ltd. Vs ACIT (1998) 60 TTJ(Bomb-Trib…

VIKRAM VADHERA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-46(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8005/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…s vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del 295 held that the right of hearing does not include a right to cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. DevasahayaNadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it was held that "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross- examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice. "In the case of GTC Industries ltd. Vs ACIT(1998) 60 TTJ(Bomb-Tri…

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

…. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the end of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve from opposite end." Further reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: 'It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income-tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross- examination. An 6 Aman Exports International vs. DCIT ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must…

JATIN GARG & SONS (HUF),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-36(5), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5652/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(2)Section 68

…ances of each case and Sales Vs. UOI also on the statute concerned. AIR 1992 Del 295 T. Devesahaya It is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department Nadar Vs. CIT may rely should have been subjected to cross examination. If the AO [1995] 51 ITR 20 refuses to produce an informant for cross examine by assessee there [Mad] cannot be any violation of natural justice. GTC Industries Where statement and report of third party are only secondary and Ltd Vs. ACIT subordinate material which were used to buttress the main matter [1998] 60 TTJ connected with the amount of addition, denial of opportunit…

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the Page 19 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon…

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the Page 19 of 21 ITA Nos. 378 & 379/Bang/2020 department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon…

M/S. GRM TRADING CO.,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 10/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar M/S. Grm Trading Co., Bazar Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Chowk, Angul. Chowk, Angul. Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aajfg 9627 N (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shrip.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20/6 6/ 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/ /6/2022 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: ShriP.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

…rt of legal and statutory justice and not a pari of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Revenue cannot rely on any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination (T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (51 ITR 20)(Madras HC). Adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of Collusive Nature. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held in the case of Digvijay Chemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT (248 ITR 381) that it is not necessary tha…

MR. RATANSINGH M. RATHOD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT - 32(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

…ould not have set aside the entire assessment order. At the highest, the High Court should have directed the Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross- examine the concerned witness." • In the case of T Devasahaya Nadar vs CIT (1963), 51 ITR 20 (Madras), it was held that "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the Department might rely should have been subjected to cross- examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in s. 23 (3) of the Act. The ITO is not a Court. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, he oc…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industr…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industr…

SARITA DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…l Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 6.10. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 6.11. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industr…

SNEHALATHA SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…OI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Page 9 of 11 Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). 5.8. At this juncture we referred to decision of T.Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "We are of opinion that it cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross-examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23 (3) of the Act.” 5.9. Further Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of GTC Industri…

DCIT 9(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S B. CHOPDA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…That is a risk which an assessee resorting to unfair tax saving devices has necessarily to run and an assessee who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it. 6.2.22 As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T. Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT 1964 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: "It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income-tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice,…

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…e. That is a risk which an assessee resorting to unfair 'tax saving device's has necessarily to run and an assesses who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it. As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T. Devasahaya Nadar v, CIT {1964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: 'It cannot be hid down as a general proposition of taw that the Income-tax department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice,…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SAMANTA ORGANICS P. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…hat is a risk which an assessee resorting to unfair tax saving devices has necessarily to run and an assessee who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it.” 5.2.21 As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T. Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: „It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income- tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi- judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3