Hotel Kiran v. ACIT

82 ITD 453Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#2117 most cited

What is Hotel Kiran v. ACIT authority for?

A voluntary statement made under section 132(4) during a search, if clear and unambiguous and made without coercion or threat, is binding on the assessee and raises an estoppel, shifting the burden of proof to them to show it is wrong.

55

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

Hotel Kiran v ACIT · Section 132(4) statement · voluntary statement · binding on assessee · retracted statement · burden of proof · search and seizure assessment · estoppel · 82 ITD 453 · ITAT Pune

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 153BSection 153CSection 292CSection 65BSection 68Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 181section 193section 65b(4)section 63section 271aaasection 114statement under section 132(4)section 147ofjewellery found during searchsection 158bcretracted statementsection 65b

Judgments citing Hotel Kiran v. ACIT

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3515/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHUTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI

ITA 3514/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3513/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3512/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3511/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3510/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

PURUSHTTAM LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

ITA 3509/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

…hown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them. Apparently, in the instant case, the burden has not been discharged by the appellant. Further, the ITAT, Pune, in the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune), has held that the statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever, and if the contents 10 | P a g e ITA No.3509 to 3515/Del/2025 of the statement are clear and unambiguous and the same are binding on the assessee. In the instant case, this position has not been altered in the appellate…

M/S HEADMASTER SALOON PVT.LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH

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

ITA 111/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 253

…ent in the nature of a disclosure made by the assessee is intended to stop the investigating agency from proceeding further. 21. The Ld. AO in the assessment order dt. 27/12/2016 has placed reliance on ITAT Pune Bench order in Hotel Kiran Vs. Asst,. CIT(2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune) and jurisdictional High Court judgment in case of Bachittar Singh Vs. CIT(2010) 328 ITR 400 (P&H) wherein statement under section 132(4) and under section 133A have been placed at an equal footing. Quote “……………..We are of the view that even if the statement under section 133A was not at par with the statement under section 132(4) and did no…

SHRI. KUDLUR RAMASWAMY SATHYANARAYANA ,MYSURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSURU

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

ITA 28/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Kudlur Ramaswamy Sathyanarayana, The Assistant No. 1036-20, 4Th Main, Commissioner Of Vidyanarayanapuram, Income Tax, Mysuru. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Ajops2226B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-03-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-03-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.11.2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015- 16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Bengaluru In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/12385/2018-19 Dated:17.11.2022 In Din: Itba/Apl/M/250/2022-23/1047480793 Dismissing The The Appeal & Confirming The Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Dated. 30.11.2016 Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Mysuru (Ao For Short) Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidences, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…ndisclosed income. 4.9 In the case of Smt Dayawanti v CIT [2017] 390 ITR 496 (Delhi) the High Court held that the statements recorded during search operations could be relied upon to make addition to assessee's income. In the case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune) the ITAT held that when statement under section 132(4) was voluntarily made and there was no coercion or threat whatsoever and contents of statement were clear and unambiguous, same would be binding on assessee even if it was subsequently retracted. In the case of Kernzex Micro Systems (India) Ltd v DCIT [2014] 47 taxmann.corn 375 (Andhra P…

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…threat, coercion, undue pressure etc. is established by the assessee. But in the instant case no such ITA 1706/AHD/2016/AY.2010-11 (Late) Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora evidence could be produced. Similar view has been expressed by in the case of Hotel Kiran 82 ITD 453(Pune). 24. We note that addition was not solely made based on the statement rather it has made based on the evidence and documents collected during the survey proceedings. The Assessing Officer has stated in assessment order that additions were made based on the documents and evidences obtained by the department during the survey proceedings and…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6773/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…f the assessee who is the employer and to whose interests his statement was very damaging.” 7.18. The position as regards to the evidentiary value of a statement made under section 132(4) has been explained eloquently by the ITAT in Hotel Kiran u. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune), as follows: “It is settled law that admission by a person is a good piece of evidence though not conclusive and the same can be used against a person who makes it. The reason behind this is, a person making a statement stops the opposite party from making further investigation. This principle is also embedded in the provisions of the Evide…

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3