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

Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), (Formerly Known As M/S Vs. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Road, Mumbai-400020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida & &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Dy. CIT Circle-11(2)(2), (Formerly known as M/s Vs. Room No. 421, 4th floor, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Unit No. 102-103, SDF-IV, Road, Mumbai-400020. SEEPZ, SEZ, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. PAN No. AABCE3519L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. CIT Circle-11(2)(2), M/s Sun Je…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d. Vs. ITO [2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT] (Supreme Court) 53. CIT Vs. Kuwer Fibers (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) 54. Nokia India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 212 (Delhi-Trib.) 55. ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi ([2012] 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/[2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011]245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court) 56. CIT Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 57. GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) 58. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 59. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT) 60. N.K.Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat)/[2017…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…d. Vs. ITO [2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT] (Supreme Court) 53. CIT Vs. Kuwer Fibers (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) 54. Nokia India (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2015] 59 taxmann.com 212 (Delhi-Trib.) 55. ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi ([2012] 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/[2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011]245 CTR 233 (SC) (Supreme Court) 56. CIT Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 57. GTC Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) 58. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT) 59. N K Proteins Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT) 60. N.K.Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 289 (Gujarat)/[2017…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court t…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court t…

Kamlesh Rani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court t…

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order 32 | P a g e of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble S…

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- 32 | P a g e examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble S…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- 32 | P a g e examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble S…

Parisha C. Varia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ms. Parisha C. Varia, 1401, The Income Tax Officer- 14Th Floor, 241, Keshwala Vs. 16(2)(2), Room No. 214, Garden View, Laxmibai Tardeo Road, Matru Jagmohandas Marg, Malbar Mandir, Mumbai- Hill, Mumbai-400006. 400007. Pan No. Abwpv8515C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/02/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Ms. Parisha C. Varia, 1401, The Income Tax Officer- 14th Floor, 241, Keshwala Vs. 16(2)(2), Room No. 214, Garden View, Laxmibai Tardeo Road, Matru Jagmohandas Marg, Malbar Mandir, Mumbai- Hill, Mumbai-400006. 400007. PAN No. ABWPV8515C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AR Revenue by : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR Date of Hearing : 18/02/2019 Date of pronouncement: 25/0…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69CSection 69c

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Naseem Saad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 208/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court tho…

Naseem Zafar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 207/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court tho…

Nazia Zafar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 8093/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court tho…