Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

102 ITD 375Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#1577 most cited

What is Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

An addition made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during assessment proceedings is invalid in law.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi · CIT · 102 ITD 375 · addition based on statement · invalid addition · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 40A(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 68Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 40(3)section 65asection 23(5)true and full disclosureproject completion methodon money receiptannual letting valuesection 65bhouse property incomesection 21section 43c

Judgments citing Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…f the statement recorded has been held to be invalid in law – a. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala & other [91 ITR 18 (SC)] b. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructu…

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1609/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…hen expenses should not be considered under the provisions of section 69C : 1. CIT Vs. Golani Brothers 85 taxmann.com 355 (Bom.) 2. ACIT Vs. Mulay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure and unaccounted income declared by the assessee. In this regard, the…

Dy. CIT, Circle 1(2), Pune vs. Gera Development Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 767/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…hen expenses should not be considered under the provisions of section 69C : 1. CIT Vs. Golani Brothers 85 taxmann.com 355 (Bom.) 2. ACIT Vs. Mulay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure and unaccounted income declared by the assessee. In this regard, the…

Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Asst. CIT, Circle 1(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 597/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Khandelwal & Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133ASection 154Section 69

…hen expenses should not be considered under the provisions of section 69C : 1. CIT Vs. Golani Brothers 85 taxmann.com 355 (Bom.) 2. ACIT Vs. Mulay Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 37 taxmann.com 207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure and unaccounted income declared by the assessee. In this regard, the…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…mputing undisclosed income in a block assessment especially in the circumstances wherein profit from the impugned unrecorded transactions has been estimated and declared —Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2006) 105 TTJ (Pune) 376 : (2006) 102 ITD 375 (Pune) and DM Construction (ITA No. 1791/Pn/2005, dt. 26th Oct., 2007) followed; K) Without prejudice to above we further submit:- a) As regard disallowances on the basis of entries recorded in books of accounts named as “Jadvaji” this is to submit that the assessee has not claimed these expenditure as deduction in computing the profits in the r…