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

CIT vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/965/2011HC 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…

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

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/91/2013HC 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…

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

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA/211/2013HC 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…

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

Appeals are dismissed, but in the facts

ITA - 211 / 2013HC Delhi23 Nov 2015
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…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2861/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d only in connection with the alleged excess stock. 16 2 2 5 0 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d o t h e r t h r e e a p p e a l s 22. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choksi V/s. CIT (328 ITR 411), wherein it was held as under: “It is true that in normal circumstances this Court would not interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the explanation tendered by the assessee would be considered by the authorities below. It is also to be seen as to whether an addition made is merel…

DCIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2860/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d only in connection with the alleged excess stock. 16 2 2 5 0 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d o t h e r t h r e e a p p e a l s 22. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choksi V/s. CIT (328 ITR 411), wherein it was held as under: “It is true that in normal circumstances this Court would not interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the explanation tendered by the assessee would be considered by the authorities below. It is also to be seen as to whether an addition made is merel…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2251/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d only in connection with the alleged excess stock. 16 2 2 5 0 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d o t h e r t h r e e a p p e a l s 22. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choksi V/s. CIT (328 ITR 411), wherein it was held as under: “It is true that in normal circumstances this Court would not interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the explanation tendered by the assessee would be considered by the authorities below. It is also to be seen as to whether an addition made is merel…

Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (Delhi ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2250/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Tribhovandas Bhimji बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 9, Zaveri (Delhi) Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Room No.806, Ground Floor, Old C G O Annexe Bldg, Somnath Apartments, M K Road, Marine Lines, Ram Mandir Road, Mumbai-400020 Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…d only in connection with the alleged excess stock. 16 2 2 5 0 / Mu m/ 2 0 1 3 a n d o t h e r t h r e e a p p e a l s 22. The Ld A.R placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Choksi V/s. CIT (328 ITR 411), wherein it was held as under: “It is true that in normal circumstances this Court would not interfere in the finding of fact arrived at by the authorities. It is, however, to be seen as to whether the explanation tendered by the assessee would be considered by the authorities below. It is also to be seen as to whether an addition made is merel…