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.

How many judgments cite Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT?

148 judgments on BharatTax cite Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT (328 ITR 411), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132(4), Section 133(6), Section 148.

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT (328 ITR 411)

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

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5127/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

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 5126/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 5125/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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…

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…c)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRl RAMDAS MOTOR TRANSPORT (2000) 163 CTR (AP) 403 : (1999) 238 ITR 177 (AP) : (1999) 102 T AXMAN 300 (AP) Xxxxxx ..... xxxxx d)KAILASHBEN MANHARLAL CHOKSHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2008) 220 CTR (Guj) 138 : (2010) 328 ITR 411 : (2008) 174 TAXMAN466 : (2008) 14 DTR 257 Xxxxxx ..... xxxxx It is the case of the assessee that during the course of search & seizure, no incriminating material or undisclosed income or investments were found. It is stated that the assessee was under mental pressure and tired. Therefore, to buy peace of mind, he accepted and declared Rs.5 cr…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2993/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2704/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2703/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2195/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2194/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2705/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate

Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…eja, (2017) 99 CCH 0115 (Del HC) 2) ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd.,(2017) 53 ITR (Trib) 0416 (Mumbai). 3) ITO vs. Karan R.Shah in ITA 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 4) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159 5) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, (2008) 328 ITR 411 6) CIT vs. P.V.Kalyanasundaram, (2007) 294 ITR 0049 7) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs. State of Kerala & ANR, (1973) 91 ITR 0018 12.5 The Ld.CIT-DR for the Revenue, on the other hand strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by the Ld.AR for the assessee in so far as additions tow…

Shri Vivek Chouhan, Bhopal vs. The ACIT (Central) II, Bhopal

ITA 829/IND/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Oct 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 132Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vivek Chouhan ACIT (Central)-II 25-26, Walmi Road Bhopal बनाम/ New Friends Colony Vs. Chuna Bhatti Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.ACWPC4065B Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.08.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 05.10.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Inco…

M.S, Ultimate Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 134/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17

…incriminating documents found during the course of search. Ld AR of the appellant during appellate proceedings has placed reliance on the following decisions:- a) Nathu vis State of Ut tar Pradesh AIR 1956 SC 56 b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vis CIT(2010) 328 ITR 411 Guj c) CIT vis Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 017 d) DCIT vis Ghanshyam M Tamakuwala (2017) 153 DTR (Guj) 99 During the course of search, incriminating documents found were confronted to Shri Vipin Chauhan and was asked to explain and verify through regular books of account. The appellant failed to explain and getting verified from his regu…

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 269SSection 271D

…h Court in case of CIT vs. M.A. Presstressed Works, 220 ITR 226 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has also relied upon the following decisions :- Noble Pictures vs. Jt. CIT 84 TTJ 718 (Coch.) CIT vs. Hissaria Bros 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT 328 ITR 411 (Guj.) Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the impugned order passed by the AO is barred by limitation and liable to be quashed. Even on the merits, when there is no default on the part of the assessee of violating the provisions of section 269SS as the assessee has not taken any cash loan alleged by the AO, then the levy of penalty on the bas…

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 690/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 690/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. (Formerly known as M/s Stone Circle-2, Age Ltd.), Jaipur. Gram Siapura, Diggi Malpura Road, Post- Shikarpura, Sanganer, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCS 9876 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shr…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…was made to surrender, which itself shows that such statement is not voluntary and was recorded under duress. Aforesaid submission is supported by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Gujarat), wherein also statement of the assessee had been recorded under section 132(4) at mid night, and such statement was also retracted after a lapse of two months and learned AO did not accept the retraction and accordingly, made an addition representing income disclosed by the assessee under section 132(4). On appeal, the Commissioner (App…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…was made to surrender, which itself shows that such statement is not voluntary and was recorded under duress. Aforesaid submission is supported by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Gujarat), wherein also statement of the assessee had been recorded under section 132(4) at mid night, and such statement was also retracted after a lapse of two months and learned AO did not accept the retraction and accordingly, made an addition representing income disclosed by the assessee under section 132(4). On appeal, the Commissioner (App…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…was made to surrender, which itself shows that such statement is not voluntary and was recorded under duress. Aforesaid submission is supported by the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Gujarat), wherein also statement of the assessee had been recorded under section 132(4) at mid night, and such statement was also retracted after a lapse of two months and learned AO did not accept the retraction and accordingly, made an addition representing income disclosed by the assessee under section 132(4). On appeal, the Commissioner (App…

M/S. Alert India, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1777/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alert India, Vs. Acit, C-1, Sma Industrial Estate, Circle-19(1), New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi Pan :Aaafa4467H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…nst the assessee. In support of his contention that evidence recorded in middle of night cannot be used against the assessee, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble 10 High Court of the Gujarat in the case of KailashBen Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT reported in 328 ITR 411. 7. He further submitted that the authorised officer is not empowered to take a statement on oath during the course of survey proceeding and thus the statement recorded during the course of survey proceeding on oath cannot be admitted as evidence without corroborating with other evidences. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the decisio…

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)

…e on the following decisions wherein the addition made solely on the basis of 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 &…

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)

…e on the following decisions wherein the addition made solely on the basis of 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 &…

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

What is Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

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

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

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

The A C I T Central-II, Bhopal vs. S V Infra Developers, Bhopal

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

Shri Vivek Chouhan, Bhopal vs. The ACIT (Central) II, Bhopal

M.S, Ultimate Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2, Bhopal

Shri Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Kota

M/S Stone Age Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Alert India, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

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