Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

328 ITR 411High Court2010#672 most cited

What is Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

An addition to income cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, especially when such a statement is retracted and the assessee provides contrary corroborative evidence.

148

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi · Section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · evidentiary value · addition based on retracted statement · corroborative evidence · search assessment · unexplained income

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 257

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 134extinguishment of rightsgaarsection 194qretracted statementfaceless assessment schemeprotective assessmentsubstantive assessmentretraction of statementsection 151adumb documentssection 158bb(1)

Judgments citing Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ds of time can be successfully retracted contending the same was recorded under pressure and force and not while in the proper frame of mind. Gainful reference may also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cash of Kailashben M. Chokshi (328 ITR 411) relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee, wherein also the statements that were recorded at odd hours were held to be taken under duress, particularly when such statement was not backed by any corroborative material or evidence found in the course of search. The relevant findings are as follows: “22…..It is true that in normal circumstances th…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ds of time can be successfully retracted contending the same was recorded under pressure and force and not while in the proper frame of mind. Gainful reference may also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cash of Kailashben M. Chokshi (328 ITR 411) relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee, wherein also the statements that were recorded at odd hours were held to be taken under duress, particularly when such statement was not backed by any corroborative material or evidence found in the course of search. The relevant findings are as follows: “22…..It is true that in normal circumstances th…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ds of time can be successfully retracted contending the same was recorded under pressure and force and not while in the proper frame of mind. Gainful reference may also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cash of Kailashben M. Chokshi (328 ITR 411) relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee, wherein also the statements that were recorded at odd hours were held to be taken under duress, particularly when such statement was not backed by any corroborative material or evidence found in the course of search. The relevant findings are as follows: “22…..It is true that in normal circumstances th…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ds of time can be successfully retracted contending the same was recorded under pressure and force and not while in the proper frame of mind. Gainful reference may also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cash of Kailashben M. Chokshi (328 ITR 411) relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee, wherein also the statements that were recorded at odd hours were held to be taken under duress, particularly when such statement was not backed by any corroborative material or evidence found in the course of search. The relevant findings are as follows: “22…..It is true that in normal circumstances th…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ds of time can be successfully retracted contending the same was recorded under pressure and force and not while in the proper frame of mind. Gainful reference may also be to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the cash of Kailashben M. Chokshi (328 ITR 411) relied upon by the Ld. AR of the assessee, wherein also the statements that were recorded at odd hours were held to be taken under duress, particularly when such statement was not backed by any corroborative material or evidence found in the course of search. The relevant findings are as follows: “22…..It is true that in normal circumstances th…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e one such retracted statement is illegal and invalid. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions:  CIT Vs Chandra kumar Jethmal Kochar (2015) 55 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.)  Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)  DCIT Vs Ratan Corporation (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines Vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  PCIT vs Sunshine Imports & Exports P. Ltd. (2020) 118 taxmann.com 123 (Bom.)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  AC…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e one such retracted statement is illegal and invalid. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions:  CIT Vs Chandra kumar Jethmal Kochar (2015) 55 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.)  Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)  DCIT Vs Ratan Corporation (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines Vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  PCIT vs Sunshine Imports & Exports P. Ltd. (2020) 118 taxmann.com 123 (Bom.)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  AC…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e one such retracted statement is illegal and invalid. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following decisions:  CIT Vs Chandra kumar Jethmal Kochar (2015) 55 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.)  Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)  DCIT Vs Ratan Corporation (2005) 197 CTR 536 (Guj.)  M/s Sashi Wines Vs ITO (ITA No. 882/AHD/2017)  PCIT vs Sunshine Imports & Exports P. Ltd. (2020) 118 taxmann.com 123 (Bom.)  CIT Vs S. Jayalaxmi Ammal (2016) 74 taxmann.com 35 (Mad.) Raj Enterprises (AY 2009-10 & 2010-11)  DCIT Vs Pramukh Builders (2008) 115 TTJ 330 (Ahd.)(TM)  AC…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. Monareeca Enterprise, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and consequently, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 2386/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarwith Cross Objection No.67/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 M/S.Monareeca Enterprise Baroda. Vs “Monalisa Lakewood” B/H. Vibgyor School Atladra Padra Road Baroda Pan : Aatfm 2714 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vijaykuamr Jaiswal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykuamr Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER With Cross Objection No.67/Ahd/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 DCIT, Cent.Cir.1 M/s.Monareeca Enterprise Baroda. Vs “Monalisa Lakewood” B/h. Vibgyor School Atladra Padra Road Baroda PAN : AATFM 2714 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assess…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Dipak Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 1 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A Nos.99 to 101/Ind/2016 & ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2012-13 DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Appellant V/s Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Respondent CO No.25/Ind/2017 Arising out of ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Appellant V/s DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Re…

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Pankaj and Deepak Kalani 1 (SS) 99 of 2016 and others आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A Nos.99 to 101/Ind/2016 & ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11 & 2012-13 DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Appellant V/s Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Respondent CO No.25/Ind/2017 Arising out of ITA No.1044/Ind/2016 Assessment Year 2012-13 Pankaj Kalani, Indore PAN – ADUPK 6103 B : Appellant V/s DCIT, Central-1, Indore : Re…

The DCIT, Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Sambhav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1818/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1818/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Vs. Sambhav Infrastructure P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. B-12, Amar Aprtment Vasna Barrage Road Vasna, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aakcs 5194 C

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman,CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…er Khan Sons (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) ix) Pau Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 157 (Mad) x) Ashok Manilal Thakkar Vs. ACIT, (2005) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) xi) CIT Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP) xii) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. CIT, 328 ITR 411 (Guj); xiii) Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT, (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del) xiv) ITO Vs. Vijaykumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chattis) 15. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down to these decisions. As far as the decisions referred under the head legal submissions on offering the income admitted under section 133A is concerned, decision in…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 841/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. Nos. 838, 839, 840 & 841/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2003-04 TO 2005-06 & 2007-08) Shri Gautam Kumar, ACIT, B–101/102, Cosmopolitan Vs. Central Circle : 12, Society, Plot No. 33, New Delhi. Sector 10, Dwarka, N. Delhi. PAN: AIJPK0403M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; & Shri Sumit Kant, C. A.; Department by: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR; Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2021 O…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 840/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. Nos. 838, 839, 840 & 841/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2003-04 TO 2005-06 & 2007-08) Shri Gautam Kumar, ACIT, B–101/102, Cosmopolitan Vs. Central Circle : 12, Society, Plot No. 33, New Delhi. Sector 10, Dwarka, N. Delhi. PAN: AIJPK0403M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; & Shri Sumit Kant, C. A.; Department by: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR; Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2021 O…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 839/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. Nos. 838, 839, 840 & 841/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2003-04 TO 2005-06 & 2007-08) Shri Gautam Kumar, ACIT, B–101/102, Cosmopolitan Vs. Central Circle : 12, Society, Plot No. 33, New Delhi. Sector 10, Dwarka, N. Delhi. PAN: AIJPK0403M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; & Shri Sumit Kant, C. A.; Department by: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR; Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2021 O…

Mr. Gautam Kumar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 838/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; &For Respondent: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR
Section 131Section 153A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. Nos. 838, 839, 840 & 841/Del/2011 (Assessment Years: 2003-04 TO 2005-06 & 2007-08) Shri Gautam Kumar, ACIT, B–101/102, Cosmopolitan Vs. Central Circle : 12, Society, Plot No. 33, New Delhi. Sector 10, Dwarka, N. Delhi. PAN: AIJPK0403M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajnish Aggarwal, C. A.; & Shri Sumit Kant, C. A.; Department by: Shri Najmi [CIT] – DR; Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Date of pronouncement : 28/09/2021 O…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITA No. 714/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 1 Dy. CIT, C.C-1(4) Vs. M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax M/s Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old CGO Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN No. AACCH3946B (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee by : Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.R Revenue by :…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5341/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…garwal and his statement was again recorded on oath u/s 131 on 27/01/2016 wherein he affirmed the fact of retraction and contested the surrender earlier made by him. In terms of decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manohar Lal Choksi Vs. CIT (328 ITR 411), when original statement was retracted by the assessee and the assessee had satisfactorily explained the delay in retraction, its evidentiary value gets reduced. In the given circumstances, it would be duty of Ld.AO to make water tight case by making necessary enquires and by bringing cogent evidences on record to prove otherwise. In a situation…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5340/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…garwal and his statement was again recorded on oath u/s 131 on 27/01/2016 wherein he affirmed the fact of retraction and contested the surrender earlier made by him. In terms of decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manohar Lal Choksi Vs. CIT (328 ITR 411), when original statement was retracted by the assessee and the assessee had satisfactorily explained the delay in retraction, its evidentiary value gets reduced. In the given circumstances, it would be duty of Ld.AO to make water tight case by making necessary enquires and by bringing cogent evidences on record to prove otherwise. In a situation…

Sahakar Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5128/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5125/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5126/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 3. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5127/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 4. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5128/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sahakar Global Ltd. Dcit-Cc-4(1) B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia Space, Room No.1916,19Th Floor बिाम/ Western Edge Ii Air India Building Vs. W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 066 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 5. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5340/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 6. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5968/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 7. आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No 5341/Mum/2017 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-Cc-4(1) Sahakar Global Ltd. Room No.1916,19Th Floor B-10, 1St Floor, Kanakia बिाम/ Air India Building Space, Western Edge Ii Vs. Nariman Point W.E.Highway, Boriwali(East) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-3575-R

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Kumar Leuva-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 68

…garwal and his statement was again recorded on oath u/s 131 on 27/01/2016 wherein he affirmed the fact of retraction and contested the surrender earlier made by him. In terms of decision of Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manohar Lal Choksi Vs. CIT (328 ITR 411), when original statement was retracted by the assessee and the assessee had satisfactorily explained the delay in retraction, its evidentiary value gets reduced. In the given circumstances, it would be duty of Ld.AO to make water tight case by making necessary enquires and by bringing cogent evidences on record to prove otherwise. In a situation…