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

Triveni Realities, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3782/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2010-11 Triveni Realities Acit Cent. Cir 2, 001, Ground Floor, Now With Dcit 25(1) Vs. Balaji Business Park, Plot No.3 &5, Mumbai Survey No.785, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit 25(1) Triveni Realities Mumbai Mumbai 400059 Vs. Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 48(5)

…MVAT defaulter and accordingly to avoid the consequences of default may have given such a statement. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. M/s. Ashish International (ITA no. 4299 of 2009) (Bom.) and H.R. Mehta v. ACIT [2016] 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) 7. As per learned AR, Section 48(5) of MVAT Act shifts the burden of paying MVAT to the purchaser of goods on the seller giving such a deposition of issuing bogus bills. He accordingly submitted that the statement of VAT defaulters who are saving their skin and having vested interest cannot be relied upon. He further contended that the tra…

Triveni Homes, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Triveni Homes Vs. Acit Cc-2 001, Ground Floor Thane - 400604 Balaji Business Park Plot No. 3&5, Survey No.785 Marol, Andheri (E) Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aafft1576R Appellant) .. Respondent) Dcit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Triveni Homes Mumbai 001, Ground Floor Plot Number-3 & 5 Mittal Industrial Estate M.V.Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai

Section 10ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)

…accordingly to avoid the consequences of default may have given such a statement. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Triveni Homes CIT v. M/s. Ashish International (ITA no. 4299 of 2009) (Bom.) and H.R. Mehta v. ACIT [2016] 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) 14. It was also argued by learned AR that Section 48(5) of MVAT Act shifts the burden of paying MVAT to the purchaser of goods on the seller giving such a deposition of issuing bogus bills. The AR accordingly submitted that the statement of VAT defaulters who are saving their skin and having vested interest cannot be relied upon. In respe…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…de available to the assessee, such disallowance cannot be sustained as held by the Apex Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713)(SC). He submits that this proposition also accepted by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H R Mehta v. ACIT (387 ITR 561). 16. With respect to the Rail System, Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that, as apparent from the show cause notice issued u/s.263 by Ld. PCIT, the Ld CIT(A)-5 has concluded that: a. As per para 2.3(i) of the show cause notice, Rail System developed by the assessee company is simply "Private facility". b. As per para 2,3(ii) of…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…de available to the assessee, such disallowance cannot be sustained as held by the Apex Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713)(SC). He submits that this proposition also accepted by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H R Mehta v. ACIT (387 ITR 561). 16. With respect to the Rail System, Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that, as apparent from the show cause notice issued u/s.263 by Ld. PCIT, the Ld CIT(A)-5 has concluded that: a. As per para 2.3(i) of the show cause notice, Rail System developed by the assessee company is simply "Private facility". b. As per para 2,3(ii) of…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…de available to the assessee, such disallowance cannot be sustained as held by the Apex Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713)(SC). He submits that this proposition also accepted by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H R Mehta v. ACIT (387 ITR 561). 16. With respect to the Rail System, Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that, as apparent from the show cause notice issued u/s.263 by Ld. PCIT, the Ld CIT(A)-5 has concluded that: a. As per para 2.3(i) of the show cause notice, Rail System developed by the assessee company is simply "Private facility". b. As per para 2,3(ii) of…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…de available to the assessee, such disallowance cannot be sustained as held by the Apex Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713)(SC). He submits that this proposition also accepted by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of H R Mehta v. ACIT (387 ITR 561). 16. With respect to the Rail System, Learned Counsel for the assessee further submits that, as apparent from the show cause notice issued u/s.263 by Ld. PCIT, the Ld CIT(A)-5 has concluded that: a. As per para 2.3(i) of the show cause notice, Rail System developed by the assessee company is simply "Private facility". b. As per para 2,3(ii) of…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Samdani Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 4439/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Asst. Cit 5(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Samdani Steels R.No.519, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt.Ltd., M.K. Road, 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1St Floor Mumbai -400020 C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No. Aakcs1663A Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Maruti Inox (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit 5(3) (Formerly Kniwn As Samdani Aayakar Bhavan Steel Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1St Floor C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aakcs1663A Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM Asst. CIT 5(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Samdani Steels R.No.519, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt.Ltd., M.K. Road, 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1st Floor Mumbai -400020 C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 PAN/GIR No. AAKCS1663A Appellant) .. Respondent) M/s. Maruti Inox (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT 5(3) (Formerly kniwn as Samdani Aayakar Bhavan Steel Pvt. Ltd.,) Mumbai 65/73, Habib Building R.No.16, 1st Floor C.P. Tank Road Mumbai – 400 004 PAN/GIR No.AAKCS1663A Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee by Shri Rush…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3096/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3094/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3093/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3092/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

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

ITA 3091/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3091 TO 3096/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2013-14) Office of the ACIT 24(3) v. Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal R.No.413, 4th floor, B/2/601, Greenland CHS Ltd, Piramal Chambers, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 012 PAN No: AADPJ 1124 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department by : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai Date of Hearing : 02.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2017 O R D E R PER BENC…

Rajda Polymers, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-36, Kolkata

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

ITA 333/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 333/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajda Polymers -Vs- Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata [Pan: Aadfr 2816 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 35(1)(ii)

…o violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected”. 5.3. We find that similar views were taken in the following decisions :- a) Decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H R Mehta vs CIT reported in 387 ITR 561 (Bom) b) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ashwani Gupta reported in 322 ITR 396 (Del) c) Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs SMC Chare Brokers Ltd reported in 288 ITR 345 (Del) d) Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union of India reported in 247 ITR 274 (SC) e)…

Kalsha Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…found that statement given by Shri. Mukesh Choksi, reproduced by the AO in Para 5 of the Assessment Order is too general and does not particularly mention about shareholding in the assessee company. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs ACIT (387 ITR 561) for addition made under section 68 towards loan amount in hands of assessee on basis that no confirmation letter had been obtained from lender nor any other verifiable evidence in respect of loan transaction had been rued. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that: "17. In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently…

Kalsha Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…found that statement given by Shri. Mukesh Choksi, reproduced by the AO in Para 5 of the Assessment Order is too general and does not particularly mention about shareholding in the assessee company. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs ACIT (387 ITR 561) for addition made under section 68 towards loan amount in hands of assessee on basis that no confirmation letter had been obtained from lender nor any other verifiable evidence in respect of loan transaction had been rued. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that: "17. In our view in the light of the fact that the monies were advanced apparently…