What is K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India authority for?

A lawful assessment must be based on material evidence and cannot rely solely on an admission or statement, especially if obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or improper means. The voluntary nature of a statement is a prerequisite for it to be acted upon, and authorities must apply their mind to subsequent retractions.

How many judgments cite K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India (197 ITR 196), spanning 2019 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 153A, Section 115BBE, Section 132.

K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India (197 ITR 196)

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/BANG/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.131 to 134/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Deputy Commissioner of F 113, 2CD, Central Chambers Income-tax 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Gandhinagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560 009 PAN NO : AAECS2377M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L., A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhot…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jammu vs. M/S J. K. Mint Industries, Bari Brahmana

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

ITA 613/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 80I

…ellant was not given the opportunity to cross examine Sh. Harit Sharma and finding of the PF Department does not ipso facto apply to the provisions of the Act. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision of K.T.M.S. Mohammed Vs. Union of India (1992) 197 ITR 196 (SC) wherein it has held that the provisions of PF Act and those of Income tax Act are set out in different background with different purposes. It was also submitted that the report of PF department nowhere states that the appellant was not employing ten workers for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s. 80IB; at the most it throws light on the n…

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 153A

…ITA No.157/Bang/2020 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath P-22, Golden Enclave Deputy Commissioner of Old Airport Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 017 Central Circle-1(4) Bengaluru PAN NO : AABPL0986F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7214/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…ssions. Other observations of Ld. AO are not based on facts on record. Thus Ld. AO made addition without application of mind. 2.1 it Is submitted that Investigation by another department cannot be a basis of assessment. Supreme Court in the case of ATMS Mohd. 197 ITR 196 observed that It is needless to emphasize that FERA and Income Tax Act are two separate and Independent Acts C.O. No. 221/MUM/2018 M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., operating In two different fields. The statement recoded under TLRA proceeding cannot be applied in IT proceedings as scope of two independent Acts are entirely different and dissimil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7213/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…ssions. Other observations of Ld. AO are not based on facts on record. Thus Ld. AO made addition without application of mind. 2.1 it Is submitted that Investigation by another department cannot be a basis of assessment. Supreme Court in the case of ATMS Mohd. 197 ITR 196 observed that It is needless to emphasize that FERA and Income Tax Act are two separate and Independent Acts C.O. No. 221/MUM/2018 M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., operating In two different fields. The statement recoded under TLRA proceeding cannot be applied in IT proceedings as scope of two independent Acts are entirely different and dissimil…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj

Section 147

…ssions. Other observations of Ld. AO are not based on facts on record. Thus Ld. AO made addition without application of mind. 2.1 it Is submitted that Investigation by another department cannot be a basis of assessment. Supreme Court in the case of ATMS Mohd. 197 ITR 196 observed that It is needless to emphasize that FERA and Income Tax Act are two separate and Independent Acts C.O. No. 221/MUM/2018 M/s. Phulchand Exports Pvt. Ltd., operating In two different fields. The statement recoded under TLRA proceeding cannot be applied in IT proceedings as scope of two independent Acts are entirely different and dissimil…

M/S Atop Fasteners (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1616/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT

Section 133ASection 250(6)

…10 CIT Vs Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (P&H HC) 184 Taxman 6 ITA-1616/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 39 of 84 (available at Paper Book pages 167-169). Head Note thereof was relied upon. 37.10 Attention was also invited to K.T.M.S. Mohd. & ANR V Union of India (S.C) 197 ITR 196 (available at Paper Book pages 170 to 187). Referring to the Head Note of the said decision, it was submitted that the Court clearly held considering the statement given by a family member in FERA proceedings that the Court or any Authority intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as a voluntary statement should apply its mind to the r…

M/S.Prince Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd, Palakkad vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 36/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ndicated hereinbefore, he being an officer concerned or the person in authority, s. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted. 12.4 It has been similarly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr.vs. Union of India (1992) (197 ITR 196) as under: "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant pro…

The ACIT, Kochi vs. M/S.Prince Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd, Palakkad

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

ITA 21/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am&George George K., Jm

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ndicated hereinbefore, he being an officer concerned or the person in authority, s. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act would be attracted. 12.4 It has been similarly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr.vs. Union of India (1992) (197 ITR 196) as under: "We think it is not necessary to recapitulate and recite all the decisions on this legal aspect. But suffice it to say that the core of all the decisions of this Court is to the effect that the voluntary nature of any statement made either before the customs authorities or the officers of Enforcement Directorate under the relevant pro…

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…the ld. Counsel for the assessee, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that timing and facts of retraction need to be seen. He contended that even the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T. M.S. Mohammed & Another –vs.- Union of India [197 ITR 196] is not applicable in the present case as there is no proof of pressure, coercion or duress as alleged by the assessee. He contended that even the other case laws cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High C…