Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. v. CIT

302 ITR 173High Court2008#5761 most cited

What is Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessee who displays a casual approach and lacks interest in pursuing an appeal may not be granted further opportunities, especially when the burden of proof to rebut the Assessing Officer's findings rests with the assessee under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Fairdeal Filaments Ltd v CIT · 302 ITR 173 · casual approach in appeal · lack of interest in appeal · opportunity of being heard · Section 114(g) Evidence Act · onus on assessee · rebut AO findings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54BSection 68Section 111BSection 114(g)

Issues it is cited on

section 114section 250(6)unexplained cash creditsection 11section 25section 115section 68opportunity of being heardpersonsection 250documentbusiness

Judgments citing Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. v. CIT

ITO, WARD- 2(3)(4), HAPUR, HAPUR vs. SHIVA AND SHIVA, HAPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 1945/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayito, Ward 2(3)(4), Vs. Shiva & Shiva Hapur Near Sri Ram Mandir, 3-A, Surya Vihar, L.N. School Marg, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Garh Road, Hapur, Up Hapur (Pan: Adxfs1969A) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 101/Del/2025 (Ita No. 1945/Del/2025) (Ay 2020-21) Shiva & Shiva Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), Near Sri Ram Mandir, Hapur, Up L.N. School Marg, Garh Road, Hapur (Pan: Adxfs1969A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Sh. Ayaan Singh, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. Ayaan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), VS. SHIVA AND SHIVA HAPUR NEAR SRI RAM MANDIR, 3-A, SURYA VIHAR, L.N. SCHOOL MARG, NEAR AMBEDKAR CHOWK, GARH ROAD, HAPUR, UP HAPUR (PAN: ADXFS1969A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 101/DEL/2025 (ITA No. 1945/DEL/2025) (AY 2020-21) SHIVA AND SHIVA VS. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), NEAR SRI RAM MANDIR, HAPUR, UP L.N. SCHOOL MARG, GARH ROAD, HAPUR (PAN: ADXFS1969A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Revenue by : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR. Assessee by : Sh. Ayaan Singh,…

BHAGWAT PRASAD MALVIYA,BHOPAL vs. ITO-3(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 456/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2014-15 Bhagwat Prasad Malviya Ito -3(1) 28, Crp Phatak Road Bhopal बनाम/ Bairagarh, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afbpm8998M Assessee By Shri N.D. Patwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 548Section 54B

…ments in respect of the grounds of appeal raised in this appeal. The conduct of the appellant indicates lack of interest in prosecuting this appeal. In this regard, reliance is placed on Gujarat High Court Judgment in case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173. Therefore, it is not required to give any further opportunity to the assessee.” 2.3 That the assessee being aggreived by the “Impugned Rectification Order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal & has raised following grounds of appeal in the form no.36 against the “Impugned Order” which are as under:- “1.The ld AO was…

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 168/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

…t necessary to give any further opportunity to the assessee, as the assessee had not shown any interest in pursuing the appeal. For this proposition, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. vs. CIT, 302 ITR 173 (Guj). The ld. CIT(A) held that section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 created a presumption, that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. He held that the burden of proof lay on the assessee in appeal proceedings to prove that the findings of the ld. AO were incorrec…

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 167/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

…t necessary to give any further opportunity to the assessee, as the assessee had not shown any interest in pursuing the appeal. For this proposition, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. vs. CIT, 302 ITR 173 (Guj). The ld. CIT(A) held that section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 created a presumption, that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. He held that the burden of proof lay on the assessee in appeal proceedings to prove that the findings of the ld. AO were incorrec…

BAHADUR SINGH ,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54B

…t of the appellant shows that, the appellant is approaching the appeal in a very casual manner and not showing any interest in pursuing the appeal. In this regard, reliance is placed on Gujarat High Court Judgment in case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173. Therefore, it is not required to give further opportunity to such recalcitrant assessee 5.2 The section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee to…

AMERICA EXPRESS SERVICES INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee be considered allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3524/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi30 Nov 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 American Express Services India Ltd., Vs Dcit, Metropolitan, Saket, Circle-1(1), 7Th Floor, Office Block, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. Pan: Aabct0555D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Parth, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 American Express Services India Ltd., Vs DCIT, Metropolitan, Saket, Circle-1(1), 7th Floor, Office Block, New Delhi. District Centre, Saket, New Delhi – 110 017. PAN: AABCT0555D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nageswar Rao & Shri Parth, Advocates Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.11.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal is preferred by the Asses…

SMT SHITAL JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4 (4), INDORE

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

ITA 122/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishital Jain Ito 4(4) 171, Venktesh Nagar Indore Vs. Indore

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 234BSection 68

…ct of the appellant shows that, the appellant is approaching the appeal in a very casual manner and not showing any interest in pursuing the appeal. In this regard, reliance is placed on Gujarat High Court Judgment in case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173. Therefore, It is not required to give further opportunity to such recalcitrant assessee. 5.2 The section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee to…

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 371/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

…the facts of the case and that assessee has made no representation it is hereby held that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on Gujarat High Court Judgement in case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173 also. 4.2.2 Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. If the assessee fails to dispr…

MH BROTHERS ,RAISEN vs. THE ITO , RAISEN

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 370/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 249(2)Section 250

…the facts of the case and that assessee has made no representation it is hereby held that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Reliance in this regard is placed on Gujarat High Court Judgement in case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd vs. C.I.T. 302 ITR 173 also. 4.2.2 Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. 1872 lays a presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced, would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the Assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. If the assessee fails to dispr…

DEVENDERSINGH SAJUBHAI JADEJA,,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 464/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 464/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Devendersingh Sajubhai Jadeja, Income Tax Officer, C/101, Baroda Skyz, Vs. Ward-1(2)(1), Opp. Adarsh Duplex, Vadodara. Gorwa Road, Vadodara-390022. Pan: Aelpj2883F

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, CIT.D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001] 252 ITR 528 (Raj.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also affirmed these decisions in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 173 (Guj.)- After considering the report of the AO and the submissions of the AR, the additional evidence is not accepted as the same is in violation of Rule 46A. Moreover, the appellant has filed such incomplete Addl. Evidences which cannot be fully relied in absence of documentary evidences viz. the creditworthiness of the five persons who have all…

SUMAN ORGANICS & FERTILIZERS (P) LTD,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1324/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 143(2)

…ate the appeal on merits as per material 3 ITA No.1324/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 available on record. We find that the CIT(A) placed reliance on many decisions such as the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 302 ITR 173, High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd., High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India, High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in 23 ITR 480 and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar and New India Assurance Vs.…

VIJ CONSTRUCTION LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1948/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1)Section 253(3)Section 253(5)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1948/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) VIJ Construction Ltd., Addl.CIT, 6/3, Kalkaji Extension Opp. Vs Range-17, Nehru Place, Kalakaji, New Delhi. New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAACV2060N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh.D.S.Rawat, Sr.DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM [A]. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-19, New Delhi [in…

SHRI RAYJIBHAI RAMANBHAI SOLANKI,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1202/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1202/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…h that it was prevented by sufficient cause to produce any evidence before the Assessing Officer, which he was called upon to produce or was relevant to any ground of appeal. 7.4 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 173 (Guj.), has held that, " So far as admitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the benefit under the said rule was not available to a person who was negligent, non-cooperative and recalcitrant: and the Tribunal was not required to give another c…

SHRI KALPESH BHUPENDRABHAI BRAHAMBHATT,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), NOW WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

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

ITA 1990/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1990/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Vs. Ito, Brahambhatt, Ward – 5(2), Baroda, B/12, Mrudand Park Society, Now 3(1)(2), B/H. Bright School, Vip Road, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara – 390 018. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 6Th August, 2018 Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Admitting The Additional Evidences Filed In Support Of The Appellant'S Claim Against The Additions Made In The Assessment. The Hon'Ble Tribunal Be Pleased To Admit The Same & Allow Necessary Reliefs. 2. The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. A.O. In Holding That An Amount Of Rs.22,71,343/- Received In The Course Of Business Of Plying Of Motor Trucks Was To Be Assessed U/S. 56 Of The It Act & That No Further Allowance Of Expenditure From The Same Could Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Apoorva Bhardwaj, Sr.D.R
Section 194CSection 44ASection 56

…of appeal. A careful perusal of records of the appellant reveals that none of these conditions are fulfilled by the appellant. It would be pertinent to refer to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. vs CIT (2008) 302 ITR 173 where the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has held that "So far as admitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules was concerned, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the benefit under the said rule was not available to a person who was negligent, non-cooperative and recalcitrant, and the Tribunal was…

SHRI DHARMENDRASINH R.VAGHELA,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-2,, BARODA

In the result, ground no.2 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2444/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

…occasion to interfere. Similar view has been taken by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rao Raja Hanut Singh [2001] 252 ITR 528 (Raj.). Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also affirmed these decisions in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. Vs CIT [2008] 302 ITR 173 (Guj.). After considering the facts of the case and the submissions of the AR which are not based on plausible explanation, the Additional Evidences being filed are not admitted as the same are in clear violation of Rule 46A. Considering the fact that the appellant has never been able to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs.20,00,000/- alleged…

SHRI PANKAJKUMAR BHIKHABHAI PATEL,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 661/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Sept 2017AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…and deleted now. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, it was noticed that the learned CIT(A) has, relying upon Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s judgement in the case of Fairdeal Assessment/Year : 2010-2011 Page 2 of 5 Filaments Limited vs. CIT [(2008) 302 ITR 173 (Guj.), declined to admit the additional evidence in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that it was a fit case in which learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence and decided the matter, in the light of the additional evidences, on merits. He relies upon the judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in th…

ROHM AND HAAS INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6990/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NABIN KUMAR PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.6990/Mum./2014 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. (Prior to amalgamation know as Rohm and Hass India Pvt. Ltd.), 1st Floor Block–B, Godrej IT Park ……………. Appellant 02, Godrej Business, Pirojshanagar Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 079 PAN – AAACR2855F v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–8(3), Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Respondent 101, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Assessee by : Shri M.P. Lohia Revenue by : Shri B.S. Bist Date of Hearing…

CONCORD ENVIRO SYSTEMS (P ) LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 10, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3917/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) Acit -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, Hdil Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian,DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…pport, the learned CIT(A) relied on the following decisions in support of his decision not to admit additional evidences : a) CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179(Gau. HC) b) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 01 (Bom). c) Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT 302 ITR 173(Guj HC) d) Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867(All HC) e) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanutsingh 252 ITR 528(Raj.HC) 9. The learned CIT(A) adjudicated ground No. 1 whereby it was agitated by the assessee company that the AO has erred in stating that the activities shown by the assessee company were actually part of the activities of the main group company…

DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI vs. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5978/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…d that the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act of Mr Diwan Singh and u/s 132(4) of the assessee by the Revenue on 26-04-2007 and 27-04-2007 respectively had not been retracted. He relied on the decision in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT (2008)302 ITR 173(Guj. HC) and in the case of Smt Prabhadevi S Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 0001(Bom. HC) and in the case of Tek Ram(Dead Through LRS) v. CIT (2013) 093 DTR 0350(SC) 14. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon by the rival parties. There were a search and seizure…

SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 44, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…d that the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act of Mr Diwan Singh and u/s 132(4) of the assessee by the Revenue on 26-04-2007 and 27-04-2007 respectively had not been retracted. He relied on the decision in the case of Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT (2008)302 ITR 173(Guj. HC) and in the case of Smt Prabhadevi S Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 0001(Bom. HC) and in the case of Tek Ram(Dead Through LRS) v. CIT (2013) 093 DTR 0350(SC) 14. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record including the case laws relied upon by the rival parties. There were a search and seizure…

Fairdeal Filaments Ltd. v. CIT (302 ITR 173) — Cited in 20 Judgments | BharatTax