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

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)

…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 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)

…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 &…

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)

…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 &…

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)

…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 &…

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)

…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 &…

DCIT, Cir-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 689/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am ] I.T.A No. 689/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Cc-2(3), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aaacy 2289 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Dr. A.L. Saini, AM ] I.T.A No. 689/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata -vs- M/s Yash Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AAACY 2289 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri G. Hangshing, CIT DR For the Respondent : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA Date of Hearing : 31.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 14.09.2018 ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM 1. This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata’s order passed in case No.117/CIT(A)-20/…

The DCIT, Central Circle 3, Surat vs. M/S. A.N. Lubricant, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 591/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.591/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs A.N. Lubricants, Income-Tax, 45, Gidc, Ichhapore, Central Circle-3, Surat Bhatpore, Choryasi, Surat. [Pan: Aanfa 7286 P] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132(4)

…on next day on 06.03.2013 to make disclosure on three chits at Rs. 95 lakhs. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the seized papers. The learned counsel for the assessee placing reliance in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 411 (Guj.) where CBDT Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv) dtd. 10.03.2003 has been followed. It was submitted that there is no basis of Rs. 94 lakhs. The learned counsel for the assessee claimed that CBDT Instruction has clarified that where confessional statement cannot be where there is no material on record. It submitted that the additional inco…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2783/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2782/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2651/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2650/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2649/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…be relied upon for the purpose of making addition. In support of this reliance was placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport (MANU/AP/0950/1998 : 238 ITR 177) (AP) ii. Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : 328 ITR 411) (Guj) and iii. Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Sciences vs. ACIT 12 ITR (Trib.) 376. g) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT MANU/GJ/0744/2008 : [2010] 328 ITR 411 (guj) h) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anothers MANU/SC/0386/1971 : (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission…

M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 732/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15th Cross, 24th Main Road, J P Nagar II Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent PAN: AABCI 6764 K AND M/s.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue by : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Assessee by : Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR). Date of hearing : 09/08/2016 Date of pronou…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 717/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15th Cross, 24th Main Road, J P Nagar II Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent PAN: AABCI 6764 K AND M/s.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue by : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA. Assessee by : Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR). Date of hearing : 09/08/2016 Date of pronou…

ACIT, Cen. Cir-VI, Kolkata vs. Smt. Usha Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…he hands of the assessee. These reasons had been considered by the CIT(A) as well as by the ITAT and therefore, their findings about the taxable income of the assessee has been given in the facts of the case. (iii) Kailashben Manoharlal Chokshi vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) “Held, that the statement of the assessee was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act at midnight. In normal circumstances, it was too much to give any credit to the statement recorded at such odd hours. The person would not be in a position to make any correct or conscious disclosure in a statement if such statement was recorded at such…

Commissioner of Income Tax-(Central)-I vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/83/2013HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…8ITR 782 (All) to urge that even retracted statements could be relied upon. On the contrary. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manhar Lai Chokshi v. CIT 328 ITR 411 (Guj) which supported the case of the Assessee. 13. At the outset, the Court would like to observe that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax {supra) dealt with a situation where statements were made during the course of a survey under Section 133A of the Act. The probative value of the statement…

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/964/2011HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…8ITR 782 (All) to urge that even retracted statements could be relied upon. On the contrary. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manhar Lai Chokshi v. CIT 328 ITR 411 (Guj) which supported the case of the Assessee. 13. At the outset, the Court would like to observe that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax {supra) dealt with a situation where statements were made during the course of a survey under Section 133A of the Act. The probative value of the statement…

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/963/2011HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…8ITR 782 (All) to urge that even retracted statements could be relied upon. On the contrary. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manhar Lai Chokshi v. CIT 328 ITR 411 (Guj) which supported the case of the Assessee. 13. At the outset, the Court would like to observe that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax {supra) dealt with a situation where statements were made during the course of a survey under Section 133A of the Act. The probative value of the statement…

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/981/2011HC Delhi23 Nov 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 132Section 260A

…8ITR 782 (All) to urge that even retracted statements could be relied upon. On the contrary. Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Assessee, drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailash Ben Manhar Lai Chokshi v. CIT 328 ITR 411 (Guj) which supported the case of the Assessee. 13. At the outset, the Court would like to observe that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax {supra) dealt with a situation where statements were made during the course of a survey under Section 133A of the Act. The probative value of the statement…