GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

65 ITD 380Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#892 most cited

What is GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Formal cross-examination of witnesses who make adverse reports is not an invariable requirement of natural justice (audi alteram partem) in income tax proceedings. Assessees must have a fair opportunity to meet adverse evidence, but this does not mandate formal cross-examination.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

GTC Industries Ltd v ACIT · 65 ITD 380 · ITAT Mumbai 1998 · natural justice principles · audi alteram partem · cross-examination of witnesses · adverse evidence · opportunity to rebut · Section 147 · Section 148 · tax assessment procedure

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 284

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 147Section 68Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

audi alteram partembogus long term capital gainpreponderance of probabilitythird party informationbogus ltcgcircular tradingprice riggingpenny stockviolation of natural justicesection 10(38)long term capital gainsentry operator

Judgments citing GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

Aditya Vikram Sureka, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1650/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Aditya Vikram Sureka Huf -Vs- Ito, Ward-34(2) , Kolkata [Pan: Aamha 4069 D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corrobora…

Smt. Madhu Killa, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)

…s to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corroborat…

Rukmini Devi Manpuria, Kolkata vs. DCIT(It), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1724/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1724/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rukmini Devi Manpuria -Vs- Dcit(It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata [Pan: Axapm 3836 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 11(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corroborat…

Girish Narapatchand Kanungo, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1587/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1587/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10) बिाम/ Mr. Girish Narapatchand Ito 19(1)(3) Kanungo Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Tirupati Impex, Mumbai V. Flat No. 3, 2 Nd Floor, 5 Ramniwas Bldg, 2Nd Parsiwada Lane, Opp. V.P Road Police Station, Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aoapk9201M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1587/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 22.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 10.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1587/Mum/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…, the AO is justified in drawing the inference that the purchases aggregating to Rs. 3,83,34,602/- are not genuine. As regards the issue of the denial of the cross examination, in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), it was held as under: "105. In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partem'. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination, Forma! cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by…

Franco -Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…o stake the right depends on the terms of the statute, the nature of the proceedings or of the function exercised and also the conduct of the party and the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 65 ITD 380, 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." Hence, in my opinion, whether the right to cross exa…

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 226/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…o stake the right depends on the terms of the statute, the nature of the proceedings or of the function exercised and also the conduct of the party and the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 65 ITD 380, 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." Hence, in my opinion, whether the right to cross exa…

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…o stake the right depends on the terms of the statute, the nature of the proceedings or of the function exercised and also the conduct of the party and the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. reported in 65 ITD 380, 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." Hence, in my opinion, whether the right to cross exa…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…he administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be financial nor financial but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction.'" 2.4.25 In GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1 998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), it was held as under: In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partem '. The principles of natural justice do not require format cross- examination. Formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice, it is governed by the…

Kaviraj Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1327/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…he administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor financial but let should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. 2.5.22 In GTC Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of income-tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), 't was held as under: 105 In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partem The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination. Formal cross- examination is a part of principle of natural justice. It is gover…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…ssee as it did not cause any prejudice to assessee especially when addition was made solely on the basis of return filed, document produced and submission made by assessee. Such is not the case of the assessee appellant. Case 15:- GTC industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 65 ITD 380 35 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur This case is with reference to secondary and subordinate material which is evident from the following:- “Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Principles of natural justice - Assessment year 1985-86 - Whether, where material or evidence used for purpose…

Kiran Kothari HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 443/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 68

…s to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB). 6 Kiran Kothari HUF A.Y.2013-14 (f) The ld AR drew our attention to the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. The ld AR drew our attention to the fact that in the statement of third party, t…

Popatlal N. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our said observations

ITA 5939/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Popatlal N. Shah Acit 19(2), बिधम/ 1802, Panchratna, Income Tax Office, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Vs. Mumbai- 400004. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Assessee) (प्रत्मथी / Revenue) : The Acit-19(2), M/S Popatlal N. Shah, बिधम/ Room No. 207, 1802, Panchratna, Opera Matru Mandir, House Mumbai 400051 Vs. Mumbai-400 007 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaafpo468K (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Mrs. Aarti Visangi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…of affairs on the basis of primary evidence, viz. delivery challans etc., had been proved by him beyond any scope of doubt. The CIT(A) in support of his aforesaid view relied on the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTC industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380 (Bom). The CIT(A) also did not find favour with the contention of the assessee that the A.O while dubbing the purchase transactions had failed to make any independent inquiries on his own. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the A.O after receiving the information from the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, had conducted several inquiries before ch…

Eastern Sales Agencies, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2186/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2186/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs. Chitra Agarwal, Asst. Cit-16(1), बनाम/ C/O. Laxmi Ventures India Ltd. Mumbai 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaipa 3251 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 143Section 147Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एक-सद"य मामला” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी शमीम याहया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2186/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mrs. Chitra Agarwal, Asst. CIT-16(1), बनाम/ C/o. Laxmi Ventures India Ltd. Mumbai 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAIPA 3251 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sanjay Dalmia, Vs. DCIT, 2nd Floor, Indraprakash Building, Central Circle-2, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPD9438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Adv Revenue by: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHA…

Mahendra Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

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

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…ted by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai 12 A.Yr.2014-15 Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai- Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corrobora…

Manish Kumar Baid, Kolkata vs. ACIT Circle 35, Kolkata

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

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…ted by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai 12 A.Yr.2014-15 Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai- Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corrobora…

ITO 16(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shailesh L. Chheda, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4566/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Shri Shailesh Lakhamshi Room No.219, Chheda, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Shop No.04, Narayan Vs. Mumbai-400007 Buildg. S.V. Road, Opp. Central Bank, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aacpc0733G Shri B.S. Bist-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By None

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer-16(3)(1), Shri Shailesh Lakhamshi Room No.219, Chheda, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Shop No.04, Narayan Vs. Mumbai-400007 Buildg. S.V. Road, Opp. Central Bank, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. AACPC0733G Shri B.S. Bist-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by NONE 20/…

Kiran Navin Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO -23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2601/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deysmt. Kiran Navin Doshi Income Tax Officer-23(2)(4) D-705, Kalp Nagri C-10, Pratyksha Kar Bhavan Vs. B.R. Road, Mulund (W) Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai 400080 Mumbai Pan – Abwpd5848A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Milind Rajguru
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…e administrative realities and oilier factors of a given case, can he exasperating. We can neither be finicail nor financial but should he flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction....” 7.24. In GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), it was held as under: “105. In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partern'. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross- examination. Formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed b…

Krishna Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

ITA 3770/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mandar VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं राजे"", लेखा सद"य Before S/ShJoginder Singh,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA/3770/Mum/2010,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2002-03 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Krishna Trading Co. The Income tax Officer 34, Kembros Indl. EstateSonapur Lane, Off. Ward-23 (1), Pratyakhsakar Bhavan Vs. LBS Marg, Bhandup(W),Mumbai-400 078. Bandra (East),Mumbai. PAN:AACFK 0150 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar Assessee by: Shri Mandar Vaidya सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearin…