(ii) Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

323 ITR 353High Court2010#24485 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing (ii) Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

…apposite. Estimation is integral to assessment and, therefore, cannot be impugned on that basis. Case law in the matter is legion, and toward which we may, for authority, advert to Kachwala Gems v. Jt. CIT [2007] 288 ITR 10 (SC) and CIT v. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 (Ker). Real income, subject to the provisions of the Act, is liable to be taxed (Southern Technologies Ltd. v. Jt.CIT [2010] 320 ITR 577 (SC)). The only aspect to be therefore examined is if the adjustment is reasonable, consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case. How could an assessment made inferring recovery of direct cost, implyi…

A.S.Chinmai, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Hassan

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

ITA 3434/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Ita No.3434(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri A.S.Chinmai, Prop: Sri Kanaka Jewellers, B.M.Road, Hassan Pan No.Aftpc1672C Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Vijayanagar, Belur Road, Hassan Respondent Appellant By : Shri B. Sharath Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Siddappajji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri B. Sharath Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Siddappajji, Addl.CIT

Section 133A

…ons, since the said statement does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance was placed on the following case law:- (i) CIT Vs, S. Khader Khan Son 352 ITR 480 [SC] (ii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 [Ker) (iii) CIT Vs. M/s. Hotel Samrat [2010] 323 ITR 353 [Kerala] (iv) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metl Works, [2010] 328 ITR 384 [del]) 4 The ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions of the assessee and enhanced the addition to R.83.33 lakhs with the following observations; “The aforesaid submission was carefully considered on the admitted facts. The evidence on record shows that the statement given by the appellant…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…return and surrendered income of ₹ 49,94,154/-" (ii) Whether ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring the corroboratory value of statement recorded during survey while finalizing the assessment as held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs Hotel Samrat 323 ITR 353(Ker.)." (iii) Whether Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that there is no mensrea while admitting undisclosed income during the survey and offered for taxation by filing revised return as to prove mensrea is no 3 longer required while levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the l.T. Act." 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is a civil contractor.…