GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, PE Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 PAN - AACCN5191N (Appellant) Vs DCIT, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Simran Dhawan a/w Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue by Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee cha…

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

…examination, assessee is trying to shift the burden of proof on the department. Thus, assessee’s request in this regard is not acceptable. This view is supported by the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai. The ITAT, Bombay Bench in the case of GTC Industries, [1998] 65 ITD 380 (Bombay) had held that where statements of witnesses were only secondary and of subordinate material used to buttress main matter connected with amount of additions, it had to be held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice if witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by assessee. The relevant part of the Bench’s decision i…

VISHWAS SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…es of a Court of examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Kisanlal High Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: "No natural justice Customs…

GAUTAM ASHOK CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…es of a Court of examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Kisanlal High Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: "No natural justice Customs…

GAURAV ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…es of a Court of examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Kisanlal High Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: "No natural justice Customs…

VIKRAM SAJANLAL CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…sonable\nopportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or\nrecord relied upon by the AO. It does not mandate a formal\ncross-examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of\nlaw. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd.\nv. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta\nHigh Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land\nCustoms AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: \"No natural justice\nrequires that there should be a kind of formal cross-\nexamination. Formal cross- examination is procedural justice.\nNatural justice certainly includes that any statement of a\nperson b…

TANU GAUTAM CHOKSI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…sonable\nopportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or\nrecord relied upon by the AO. It does not mandate a formal\ncross-examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of\nlaw. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd.\nv. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta\nHigh Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land\nCustoms AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: \"No natural justice\nrequires that there should be a kind of formal cross-\nexamination. Formal cross- examination is procedural justice.\nNatural justice certainly includes that any statement of a\n\nperson…

SIDHARTH ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

…sonable\nopportunity to see, comment, and criticise the evidence or\nrecord relied upon by the AO. It does not mandate a formal\ncross-examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of\nlaw. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd.\nv. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta\nHigh Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land\nCustoms AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: \"No natural justice\nrequires that there should be a kind of formal cross-\nexamination. Formal cross- examination is procedural justice.\nNatural justice certainly includes that any statement of a\nperson b…

ASHISH SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…es of a Court of examination as per the procedural rules of a Court of law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. law. Reliance is placed on ITAT Bombay, GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta v. ACIT [65 ITD 380]: The Tribunal, relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Kisanlal High Court judgment in Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 Cal 80, held that: "No natural justice Customs…

AMRIT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1660/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Amrit Corporation DCIT, CC-1(1) K-225/226, Ansa Industrial Pratishtha Bhavan Estate, Saki Vihar Road Vs. M.K. Road Sakinaka, Andheri East Churchgate Mumbai-400 072. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAFFA1022R Appellant Respondent : Shri Jayant Bhatt Assessee by : Shri Aditya M. Rai Revenue by : 23/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025 O R D E R Per Bench :- In the above cited cases, the appellant filed appeals for A.Y. 2019-20…

AMRIT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1660/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Amrit Corporation DCIT, CC-1(1) K-225/226, Ansa Industrial Pratishtha Bhavan Estate, Saki Vihar Road Vs. M.K. Road Sakinaka, Andheri East Churchgate Mumbai-400 072. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAFFA1022R Appellant Respondent : Shri Jayant Bhatt Assessee by : Shri Aditya M. Rai Revenue by : 23/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025 O R D E R Per Bench :- In the above cited cases, the appellant filed appeals for A.Y. 2019-20…

AMRIT CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “A” Bench, Mumbai. Before Smt. Beena Pillai (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) ITA No. 1660/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Amrit Corporation DCIT, CC-1(1) K-225/226, Ansa Industrial Pratishtha Bhavan Estate, Saki Vihar Road Vs. M.K. Road Sakinaka, Andheri East Churchgate Mumbai-400 072. Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AAFFA1022R Appellant Respondent : Shri Jayant Bhatt Assessee by : Shri Aditya M. Rai Revenue by : 23/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025 O R D E R Per Bench :- In the above cited cases, the appellant filed appeals for A.Y. 2019-20…

ANANDMANGAL INVESTMENT AND FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

…did not produce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs ACIT, ITAT, Mumbai, [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) wherein it was held that "Where statements of witnesses were only secondary and of subordinate material used to buttress main matter connected with amount of additions, it had to be held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice if witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by assessee". 6.2.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court i…