Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

56 ITR 365Supreme Court of India1965#2834 most cited
42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 69ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12ABSection 144Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 46asection 46admission of additional evidencerule 46asection 250(4)section 44asection 44absection 44section 133section 133aincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

CHAMAN LAL,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 489/CHANDI/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: the National Faceless Appeals Centre-Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) and the appeal is dismissed and stated that in the absence of any document/ evidence, no separate reasons needs to be recorded by the appellate authority for affirming the order of A.O. and decided that "It is evident that the appellant during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings failed to furnish documentary evidences/ proper explanation in support of his contention, so in view of aforesaid facts hence the

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kumar, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 489/Chd/ 2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chaman Lal बनाम The ITO Village Takoli, PO: Panarasa, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh Mandi, Himachal Prades, 175121 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFOPL8940B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rohit Kumar, ITP राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl.…

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

ITA 400/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

For Appellant: Shri Shalabh Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla v. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony NFAC Lucknow (U.P) TAN/PAN:BAWPS5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was an employee of Planning Research and…

KISHORKUMAR LAKHAJI PRAJAPATI ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3688/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 3688/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kishorkumar Lakhaji V/S. Income Tax Officer- Prajapati बिाम 32(2)(2) A/101, Krishna Avenue, Room No. 716, 7Th Floor, Shree Krishna Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai 400006 C043, G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipp5132E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv & Ms. Neelam Jadhav राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv & MsFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 69A

…were filed before the AO and before the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre NFAC. P a g e | 3 ITA No 3688/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18 Kirshorkumar Lakhaji Prajapati 8. Without prejudice to above the Judgement of Supreme Court in Kehav Mills Co Ltd v. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) is dealing with entirely different issue on the Issue of additional evidence which was not part of the record when the question was formed hence cannot be applied to the facts of the appellant hence the addition confirmed by the Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) may be directed to be deleted. 9. The appellant craves leave to add,…

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SHIRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

…CIT [231 ITR 1 (Bom)] The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if certain documents are necessary for determining the true state of affairs, the first appellate authority should have admitted them even without a specific request. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)] - The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that an appellate authority does not exceed its jurisdiction by admitting additional evidence if it is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. Dwarka Prasad v. ITO [63 ITD 1 (Patna) (TM)] - It was held that additional evidence should be admitted when it is crucial for rendering substantial justice…

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,SHIRUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 43/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2Section 80G

…CIT [231 ITR 1 (Bom)] The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if certain documents are necessary for determining the true state of affairs, the first appellate authority should have admitted them even without a specific request. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)] - The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that an appellate authority does not exceed its jurisdiction by admitting additional evidence if it is necessary for complete and effective adjudication. Dwarka Prasad v. ITO [63 ITD 1 (Patna) (TM)] - It was held that additional evidence should be admitted when it is crucial for rendering substantial justice…

ELLORA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 2163/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Ellora Construction Private Limited Dcit, Circle 1, Cidco Road, Azad Chowk, Vs. Aurangabad Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aawca7578C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas P Bora & Sampada Ingale Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)

…[231 ITR 1 (Bom)] - The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that if certain documents are necessary for determining the true state of affairs, the first appellate authority should have admitted them even without a specific request.  Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)] - The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that an appellate authority does not exceed its jurisdiction by admitting additional evidence if it is necessary for complete and effective adjudication.  Dwarka Prasad v. ITO [63 ITD 1 (Patna) (TM)] - It was held that additional evidence should be admitted when it is crucial for rendering substantial justi…

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 324/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) and at the same tim,ethe Assessing Officer should also be given an opportunity to verify the documents.. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. (V) Keshav Mills Co. Ltd Vs CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) At the appellate stage, additional evidence may be taken and further inquiry may be made at the direction of the AAC. (VI) ITO Vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd Vs. CIT(1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) There appears to be no good reason to justify curtailment of the power of the AAC in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeki…

KK RADHAKRISHNAN,KANNUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed on the aforesaid terms, and stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das & Sa No. 104/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Pavan Ved, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

…the investment in the said Project, much less exhibiting the source thereof, which it now claims with reference to his capital account in a partnership firm. An evidence to be creditable is to be provided at first instance (Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC)).On merits, inasmuch as M/s. K.K. Builders is, as stated, the source from which the assessee has drawn his capital to finance the investment, as one may from his bank account, he therefore ought to have included it in his cash-flow statement; the actual source being the assessee’s capital, wherever that may be invested for the time being. Sta…

ACIT 33(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHISHEK R. VYAS, MUMBAI

ITA 4116/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…but to impart the justice the CIT(A) can also do and can direct the AO to do what he has failed to do.” 14. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue drew our attention towards the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) wherein it has been held that “proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage when the matter is in charge of the Income-tax Officer.” 15.…

ACIT 33(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHISHEK R. VYAS, MUMBAI

ITA 4115/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…but to impart the justice the CIT(A) can also do and can direct the AO to do what he has failed to do.” 14. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue drew our attention towards the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) wherein it has been held that “proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage when the matter is in charge of the Income-tax Officer.” 15.…

ACIT 33(1), MUMBAI vs. ABHISHEK R. VYAS, MUMBAI

ITA 4114/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, D.R
Section 133Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…but to impart the justice the CIT(A) can also do and can direct the AO to do what he has failed to do.” 14. The Ld. D.R. for the Revenue drew our attention towards the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) wherein it has been held that “proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage when the matter is in charge of the Income-tax Officer.” 15.…

DY CIT-CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. MR JAMIL AHMED QUIRESHI, MUMBAI

ITA 1202/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 22(1), Vs. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Qureshi Piramal Chambers, Lal 102, Emerland Baug, Parel, Apartment, Near Dadar Mumbai-400012. Shakari Bank, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpq1063C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhaval Jariwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Kabra.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Jariwala.AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ason stated above are submitted 4 Since the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from production of above Mr. Jamil Ahmed Qureshi, Mumbai evidences before. the Ld. AO. It has been held in number of cases including in Keshaw Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 and Smt. Prabhavati S Shah (1998) 231 ITR 1 (BOM). It is now settled and recognized as Rule 46A that the appellate authority has a right to admit authority has a right to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice. 5. The enclosed paper books are in duplicate with a request to kindly allow an opportunity to the ld. AO to rebut the same…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HERMES INDIA RETAILS & DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purpose

ITA 4315/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

…ing IT Law, is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. A seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) had observed as under: 8 ITA No.4315/Del./2014 "Proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the Department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage when the matter is in charge of the ITO."…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…23. It is also a settled law that if the order has been passed by the lower authorities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter i…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan
Section 36(1)(iii)

…23. It is also a settled law that if the order has been passed by the lower authorities without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard then the Assessee must be allowed to file additional evidences, for this we draw support from Keshav Mills v. CIT [56 ITR 365 (SC)], Roshan v. CIT [107 ITR 938 (SC)] and Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [231 ITR 1]. Further in numerous cases including those of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court it has been held that when all the evidences are before the Tribunal, it must necessarily decide the issue instead of remanding the same. 24. Another important aspect of the matter i…

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURUGRAM

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7463/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Surendra Pal, CIT DR
Section 143

…ch weak where best legal minds were available to the assessee. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) and the decision of Honhle Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co.Ltd. vs CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC). 44. The Ld.AR for the assessee also pointed out that the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon Tile Supreme Court and strong reliance was placed on the observations of the Assessing Officer in this regard. The Ld.AR for the assessee in re-joinder pointed out that the sole argument of the Ld.DR for the Revenue was placing reliance on t…

HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7714/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Vp & Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7714/Del/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh.Ajay Vohra, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Sh.A.K.Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43A

…weak where best legal minds were available to the assessee. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co.Ltd. vs CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC). 44. The Ld.AR for the assessee also pointed out that the issue stands covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and strong reliance was placed on the observations of the Assessing Officer in this regard. The Ld.AR for the assessee in re-joinder pointed out that the sole argument of the Ld.DR for the Revenue was placing reliance on t…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KALRA PAPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4451/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68Section 69Section 73

…assessee should adduce the entire evidence in Page 15 of 21 ITA No.- 4451/Del/2015. his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. Referring to the decision in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC), 7-Judge Bench judgement of the Supreme Court, it was observed that the Court held that "Proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage whe…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…w, including Income Tax Law is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. Referring to the decision in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC), 7-Judge Bench judgement of the Supreme Court, it was observed that the Court held that "Proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage whe…

SHRI ALI HASSAN,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN

Accordingly quashed. The ground No.1 is accordingly allowed

ITA 1573/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Girish Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…that the assessee has first time raised this ground which is not permissible under law. Ld. DR for the Revenue also relied on the judgments in cases of CIT vs. Manish Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi), Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 and Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT. 8. However, we are of the considered view that this ground was very much raised by the assessee as ground no.3 before the ld. CIT (A) who has determined the same vide impugned order. Moreover, legal ground can be raised by the parties to the lis at any stage. Moreover, assessee has already tak…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3