ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

334 ITR 262Supreme Court of India2011#428 most cited

What is ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi authority for?

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

211

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 382,409 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi · natural justice · opportunity of being heard · right to cross-examine witness · assessment restoration · fresh adjudication · Tribunal powers · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 133(6) · Supreme Court

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 733

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 153ASection 68

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133astatement under section 132(4)violation of natural justicesection 158share application moneysearch assessmentservice of noticeaccommodation entrysection 133section 133aincome-tax officersection 133(6)

Judgments citing ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

Mr. Ratansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT - 32(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1869/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Ratansingh M. Rathore V. Acit -32(3) 502, Sushila Apartment Room No. 732, 7Th Floor Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacpr4164L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ChhajedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

…produced before the lower authorities or even before Hon'ble Tribunal. Thus, complete primary onus has not been discharged by assessee • Only when primary onus is discharged by assessee, the issue of cross-examination etc arise. • In any case, in the case of 334 ITR 262, 245 CTR 233 (SC), ITO vs M Pirai Choodi, (19.11.2010), the issue of non-granting of cross-examination was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the following was held:  "3. in this case, the High Court has set aside the order of assessment on the ground that no opportunity to cross-examine was granted, as sought by the 5 Shri Ratansingh M. R…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…their statements had already been recorded during the course of search and the assessee had proper opportunity to controvert the gathered material. 243. Further ld. DR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi, 334 ITR 262 (SC) wherein the facts are that the department refused to accept the interest income shown by the assessee placing reliance on a statement alleged to have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer behind the back of the petitioner, overlooking the material furnished by the assessee to substantiate his agricultural income and without g…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata vs. Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitors Trust

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/312/2017HC Calcutta16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 12ASection 133ASection 260ASection 80G

…pellate tribunal cannot be a substitute to that of an opportunity before the original adjudicating authority. The learned senior standing counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Income Tax Officer Vs. M. Pirai Choody reported in(2011) 334 ITR 262(SC). In the said case the order of assessment was set aside on the ground that no opportunity to cross-examine was granted as sought by the assessee. Considering the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should have directed the assessing officer to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2294/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Smt. Divya Bajpai
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 148

…ection 292B of the IT Act would not protect such an order as Section 292B of the IT Act cannot be read to confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer, where none exists. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Income-Tax Officer Vs. M. Pirai Choodi; [2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC) referred to in the Revenue‟s reply is also not applicable to the issue at hand as that was a case where the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness and which assessee also had a 11 A.Y.2008-09 statutory appellate remedy which the assessee had failed to avail of, whereas there is no such right available t…

Ashish Pratap Doshi, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle- 19 (1), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4921/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4921/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Ashish Pratap Doshi Acit Circle-19(1), Urja Ground Floor, 8, Alkesh Matru Mandir, Tardeo बिाम/ Vs. Dinesh Modi Marg, Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpf-4770-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…dge the same. However, in the absence of such an exercise, the impugned additions are not sustainable in law. Hence, by deleting the same, we allow the appeal. 7. The Ld. Sr. DR has referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO V/s M. Pirai Choodi (20 Taxmann.com 733; 19/11/2010) as well as the decision of Tribunal in ITO V/s M/s Vinaylene Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.3240/Mum/2017; 23/02/2018) for the submissions that not providing opportunity of cross-examination would not render assessment order as nullity and at the most, the matter could be remanded back to the file of Ld. AO. However, as…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 786/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…t ground for allowing the appeal of assessee as held in following cases of Hon’ble Apex Court. M/s Pebble Investment Supreme 2017 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT and Finance ltd., Vs ITO Court ITO Vs M. Piral Choodi Supreme 2010 [2012] 20 taxman.com 733 Court (SC)/[2011]334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011] 245 CTR 233 (SC) Roger Enterprises (P.) Supreme 2016 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 167 Ltd., Vs. CIT Court (SC) Further, CIT (A) could have directed the AO to allow the cross- examination of architect in remand proceedings. Therefore, the order of CIT (A) is not in accordance with the provisions of IT Act, 1961. Para 3.19:- There is no mista…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1), Indore vs. M/S Sunderdeep Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Indore

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 784/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…t ground for allowing the appeal of assessee as held in following cases of Hon’ble Apex Court. M/s Pebble Investment Supreme 2017 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT and Finance ltd., Vs ITO Court ITO Vs M. Piral Choodi Supreme 2010 [2012] 20 taxman.com 733 Court (SC)/[2011]334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011] 245 CTR 233 (SC) Roger Enterprises (P.) Supreme 2016 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 167 Ltd., Vs. CIT Court (SC) Further, CIT (A) could have directed the AO to allow the cross- examination of architect in remand proceedings. Therefore, the order of CIT (A) is not in accordance with the provisions of IT Act, 1961. Para 3.19:- There is no mista…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…opportunity of cross-examination as held in the following decisions:- 19 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases • Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) • Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (62 taxmann.com 3) • H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT (387 ITR 561) • ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (334 ITR 262 27. Learned Counsel of the assessee further submits that the assessee has discharged the burden to prove the genuineness of the long term capital gains earned during the year under consideration by providing all necessary evidences and hence long term capital gain on sale of shares cannot be treated as bogus. In this regard learned Counsel of th…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…opportunity of cross-examination as held in the following decisions:- 19 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases • Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) • Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (62 taxmann.com 3) • H.R. Mehta Vs. ACIT (387 ITR 561) • ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (334 ITR 262 27. Learned Counsel of the assessee further submits that the assessee has discharged the burden to prove the genuineness of the long term capital gains earned during the year under consideration by providing all necessary evidences and hence long term capital gain on sale of shares cannot be treated as bogus. In this regard learned Counsel of th…

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Kaka Rayon, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5365/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sunil Deshpande, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Kaka Rayon ACIT, Circle-1 S 29/B, Dwarkanath Compound, Vs. Mohan Plaza, Wayle Nagar, Khadak Village Kariwali, Bhiwandi, Pada Kalyan-421301. Thane-421302 PAN No. AAHFK2626H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, M/s Kaka Rayon Circle-1, Vs. S 29/B, Dwarkanath Compound, 1st Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayale Village Kariwali, Bhiwandi, Nagar, Kalyan West-421301. Thane-421302 PAN No. AAHFK2626H Appellant Re…

Mohan Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4304/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 & Ita No.4304/Del./2011 Assessment Year: 2003-04

Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) 3.7 In support of the contention that entire undisclosed income generated out of bogus transaction deserve to be added, the learned DR relied on following decisions: 1. ITO Vs. M Pirai Choodi [2012] 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/[2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011] 245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court). 2. M/s. Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. Vs. ITO [2017-TIOL-238- SC-IT] (Supreme Court) 3. CIT Vs. Kuwer Fibers (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) 4. CIT Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 5. Nokia India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 2012 (Delhi – Trib.) 6.…

Shri Lalitkumar Dwarkaprasad Surekha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5825/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Lalit Kumar Dwarkaprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Surekha, Vs. Kalyan Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor, 303, Rajendra Apartments, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Opp. Adarsh Park, Near Kalyan (W), -421301. Shivajichowk, Bhiwandi- 421302 (Dist. : Thane) Pan No. Ackps4185L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ambalal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Bhera Ram, Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Ambalal Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bhera Ram, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Lalit Kumar Dwarkaprasad Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Surekha, Vs. Kalyan Mohan Plaza, 1st floor, 303, Rajendra Apartments, Wayle Nagar, KhadakPada, Opp. Adarsh Park, Near Kalyan (W), -421301. ShivajiChowk, Bhiwandi- 421302 (Dist. : Thane) PAN No. ACKPS4185L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ambalal Jain, AR Revenue by : Mr. Bhera Ram, DR Date of Hearing : 21/11/2019 Date of pronouncement : 27/12/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. T…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…e Sh Miglani for such cross examination In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO ITA Nos. 5727 & 5728/Del/2014 27 Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. Vs M. Pirai Choodi (f2012l 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/f2011l 334 ITR 262 (SC)/r20111 245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to assessee to cross- examine, should not have been set aside by High Court: at most. High Court should have directed Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine c…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5727/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…e Sh Miglani for such cross examination In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO ITA Nos. 5727 & 5728/Del/2014 27 Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd. Vs M. Pirai Choodi (f2012l 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/f2011l 334 ITR 262 (SC)/r20111 245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to assessee to cross- examine, should not have been set aside by High Court: at most. High Court should have directed Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine c…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanghvi Star Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised in CO and case laws relied on by assessee are dismissed

ITA 5334/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5334/Mum/2017 & Cross Objection No.– 01/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Sanghvi Star Retail Acit – 11(1)(2), Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 1, Ground बिधम/ Plot No. 75, C-14, Cross Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Marol Midc, Vs. M. K. Road, Anderi (East), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 093 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aalcs5646N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr : By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.10.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 18 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 10.04.17 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2009-10. 2

For Respondent: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, AR
Section 132Section 133Section 143

…written submission, which is reproduced below: A-In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to cross examination of witnesses: 1. ITO Vs M. Pirai Choodi ([20121 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/[2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011] 245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court) where Hon'ble Supreme Court held that order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine, should not have been set aside by High Court; at most, High Court should have directed Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine concerned witness…

Pooja Exports, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6101/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pooja Exports, 306-Prasad Deputy Commissioner Of Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Opera Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. 1(1), Mumbai, Old Cgo Building, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaafp1047L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anant Pai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Awungshi Gimson, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Anant Pai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pooja Exports, 306-Prasad Deputy Commissioner of Chambers, 3rd floor, Opera Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. 1(1), Mumbai, Old CGO Building, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai. PAN No. AAAFP1047L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Anant Pai, AR Revenue by : Mr. Awungshi Gimson, DR Date of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/09/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The r…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…CIT 51 ITR 20 (Mad.): After the later decisions of the apex court as cited supra (Chuharmal Vs. CIT) this old decision of the Madras High Court loses its significance and authority. 16. ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 261 (SC): The correct citation is 334 ITR 262. This order emanates out of a writ filed before the High Court against the assessment order. It is in that context that the quoted advise has been tendered by the apex court to the High Court. It is a well established principle of law that a decision in a writ does not create a precedent. Dr. Gauri Shankar Prasad Vs. iTQ f2017) 393 ITR 635 (Pat.)…

Thuse Elektronics Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 563/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…nt order u/s 144 of the Act. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the ratio decidendi in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) through the judgment rendered by three Hon’ble Judges and that too in the context of Income-tax, as against the judgment rendered in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) delivered by two Hon’ble Judges in the context of Central Excise, was confronted with a situation in which the Hon’ble High Court set-aside the order of assessme…

Dinesh Shrivallabh Rathi, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 975/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…nt order u/s 144 of the Act. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the ratio decidendi in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) through the judgment rendered by three Hon’ble Judges and that too in the context of Income-tax, as against the judgment rendered in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) delivered by two Hon’ble Judges in the context of Central Excise, was confronted with a situation in which the Hon’ble High Court set-aside the order of assessme…

M/S. Png Jewellery & Gems, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…nt order u/s 144 of the Act. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the ratio decidendi in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC) through the judgment rendered by three Hon’ble Judges and that too in the context of Income-tax, as against the judgment rendered in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) delivered by two Hon’ble Judges in the context of Central Excise, was confronted with a situation in which the Hon’ble High Court set-aside the order of assessme…