H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

387 ITR 561High Court2016#550 most cited

What is H.R. Mehta v. ACIT authority for?

An assessment order is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer denies the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine deponents whose statements are relied upon or fails to provide the material used against them, as this violates principles of natural justice.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.R. Mehta v. ACIT · 387 ITR 561 · cross-examination · natural justice · assessment validity · material relied upon · denial of opportunity · section 143(3) · section 153A · section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)Section 69Section 263Section 147

Issues it is cited on

settlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 245dsection 245section 24regular assessmentaccommodation entrysection 133agenuineness of the transactionunexplained investmentsection 131undisclosed income

Judgments citing H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6508/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…bhai Virjibhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 151 (Gujrat) (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. (iv) In the case of Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. [167 TTJ 82 (mum)] (v) In the case of H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT [387 ITR 561 (Bombay)] He has also contended that the ld. CIT(A) has referred the matter to the A.O for submitting the remand report on verification of all the supporting document furnished by the assesse but A.O has not made any adverse remarks in the remand report. The ld. Counsel has referred the following judicial pronouncements:  “Smt. B. Jayalakshmi v.…

ACIT 22 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6505/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 6505 & 6508/Mum/2019 (A.Ys.2009-10 & 2012-13) Acit-22(3) Vs. M/S Rukhana Enterprises 305, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Centrum House, 8Th Floor Chambers, Lal Baug, Kalina, Santacruz (East), Parel, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 055 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacfr6072M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Mahita Nair Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Date Of Hearing 13.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai, Dated 11.07.2019. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 6505/Mum/2019 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 6508/Mum/2019 Mutatis Mutandis. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,26,00,000/-Made On Bogus & Non Genuine Loan & The Proportionate Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.21,96,699/- On The Said Loan Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Completely Failed In Substantiating The Loan The Loan Taken From The Parties Who Are Involved In Providing Accommodation Entries Only.

For Appellant: Smt. Mahita NairFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…bhai Virjibhai Patel (2014) 45 taxmann.com 151 (Gujrat) (iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. (iv) In the case of Cannon Industries Pvt. Ltd. [167 TTJ 82 (mum)] (v) In the case of H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT [387 ITR 561 (Bombay)] He has also contended that the ld. CIT(A) has referred the matter to the A.O for submitting the remand report on verification of all the supporting document furnished by the assesse but A.O has not made any adverse remarks in the remand report. The ld. Counsel has referred the following judicial pronouncements:  “Smt. B. Jayalakshmi v.…

ACIT -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the In the result, the appeal of Revenue for assessment year 2010

ITA 2320/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-3(1)(2), Hikal Ltd., Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, 717/718, Maker Chambers V, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaach 0383 A Appellant Respondent : Revenue By Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao Deshmukh, Cit-Dr/ Mr. R.N. D’Souza, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Revenue by Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 14A

…s v. CCE Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006) followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in H.R.Mehta v. followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) 23. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Assessing Officer has computed disallowance of . The Assessing Officer has computed disallowance of . The A…

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 2349/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…r, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in H.R.Mehta V/s ACIT (387 ITR 561). 4.7 The proposition that additions made purely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law stem from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ashrita Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…om 473(Guj). B) Non providing opportunity of cross examination i) Andaman Timber v/s, CC Exim CA No.428 of 2006(SC) ii) PCIT v/s, Kanubhai M. Patel (2017) 79 Taxman.com 257 (Guj) iii) C/T v/s. Jndrajit Singh (2013) 215 Taxman 58 (Guj) iv) H.R. Mehta v/s. AC/T 387 ITR 561 (Bom) I.T(SS.A No. 248/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 8 ACIT vs. M/s. Ashrita Constriction Pvt. Ltd. As the facts of the appellant's case are identical to the facts of the above mentioned binding judgments, the additions made by the AO are not found factually & legally justified, hence, these are deleted. This ground of appeal is…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4272/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ Ito-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7Th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash Chsl, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arwps1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-45, Mumbai, Dated 29.03.2018 For A.Y.2014-15 & Dated 12.03.2019 For Ay. 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ ITO-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash CHSL, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ARWPS1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Re…

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 153CSection 68

…xamine the witnesses on whose statements the adjudicating authority wishes to rely upon, is a serious flaw which renders the order impugned to be a nullity. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT (387 ITR 561). 16. Thus, on the overall conspectus of facts and circumstances as discussed in the foregoing, we therefore do not find any fault with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.1 crore made u/s 68 of the Act by the AO. 17. Before parting, we would like to address the concern of the Ld. DR that by upholding the action of the Ld. CIT…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Abhishek L. Jain, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 344/SRT/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.344/Srt/2019 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shri Abhishek L.Jain 2(3)(7), Room No. 414, 4Th Prop Of Manglam Export, Vs Floor, Anavil Business Centre, 302, Pipla Sheri, Adajan-Hajira Road, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003 Pan : Abxpj 0344 G Surat-395009 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

…vs. Akruti Dyeing & Printing Mills Pvt. Ltd. TA No.997/2008 (Guj)  CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj)  PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. 422 ITR 520 (Bom)  PCIT vs. Md. Haji Adam & Co. & Ors. 104 CCH 391 (Bom)  H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT 289 ITR 561 (Bom)  CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619 (Bom)  Haryana Jwellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No. 2315/Del/2018 (Delhi. Trib)]  Gopinath Gems vs. ITO [ITA No.624-629/SRT/2018 (Surat Trib.)]  Pankaj K Jain HUF vs. ITO [269/SRT/2017 (Surat Trib.)]  ACIT vs. Rushabh International [ITA No.347, 349- 350/SRT/2018 (Surat Trib.)] 13 S…

Dev Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Astha ManiarFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

…elied upon the following decisions: i) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCEX (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) ii) PCIT vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel (2017) 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 215 Taxman 581 (Guj) iv) H R Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Bom) v) Marudhar Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 301/Ahd/2018 vi) Arceli Reality Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 6492/Mum/2016 (Mum. Tri.) vii) Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) viii) Appropriate Authority vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma 249 ITR 554 (SC) ix) Heirs & LHS of Late Laxmanbhai Patel vs. CIT 327 ITR 290 (Guj) x) CIT vs…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1194/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1193/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1192/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1191/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1190/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

Kiritkumar Dharsibai Suba, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, these appeals are also allowed

ITA 1188/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Nishita MandalywalaFor Respondent: Smt. Neelam Shukla
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153C

…s. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure and others dated 04.02.2015 ITA No. 236/2014 ii. CIT vs Calucltta Knitwears (2014) 43 taxmann.com 446 (Hon’ble SC) iii. Pepsico India Holding P Limited vs. ACIT 50 taxmann.com 299 (Hon’ble Delhi HC) iv. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Hon’ble Bombay HC) v. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others 4SCC 465 (Hon’ble SC) vi. CIT vs. Khader Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Hon’ble SC) vii. CIT vs. Ashok Kumar Jain (2014) 369 ITR 145 (Hon’ble HC) viii. CIT vs. M.P Scrap Dealers (2015) 372 ITR 507 (Hon’ble Gujarat HC) ix. Jain Trading Co vs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (…

M/S India Impex, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2858/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. India Impex V. Acit-19(1) Unit No. 4, 1St Floor Matru Mandir Building Brady Glady Plaza Bhatia Hospital Lane 1/447, Senpati Bapat Marg Javji Dadaji Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Grant Road (W) Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aaafi5046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…e made if the Assessing Officer does not provide an opportunity of cross examination. Reliance is placed on the following decisions – (a) Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) (b) Kishinchand Chhellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) H.R. Mehta 387 ITR 561 (Bom) 61. The assessee contend that the work has been actually done by Ms.Harshida and the Assessing Officer has not doubted the said aspect, however, merely because the bills were raised in the name of her husband disallowed the impugned expenses and thus, the impugned expenses ought to have been allowed. 62. Without prejudice, the assessee co…

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68

…he case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) to defend his arguments that addition made without giving the opportunity of cross examination is invalid and bad in law. The Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that addition made without giving an opportunity of cross 8 M/s. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. examination was to be deleted. Besides the Ld. A.R. also relied series of decisions namely; ITO vs. MJD Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.6051/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 dated 20.09.2020, ITO vs. Celebrity Life Space P…

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

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [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 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)—7, New Delhi dated 17th June, 2019, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2011-12. The…

Kavita Pawan Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7931/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1139-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…r, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. Similar is the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in H.R.Mehta V/s ACIT (387 ITR 561). 4.7 The proposition that additions made purely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law stem from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence…