Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

56 ITR 365Supreme Court of India1965#2796 most cited

What is Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority has the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence if it is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the matter.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 56 ITR 365 · Supreme Court · admission of additional evidence · appellate authority powers · complete adjudication · effective adjudication · Rule 29 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules · Section 250(4) Income Tax Act · Rule 46A Income Tax Rules · evidence in appeal · tax appeals

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 69ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12ABSection 144Section 147
Read the full judgment

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

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Rohan Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2847/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Rohan Motors Ltd., 419, Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi Pan : Aaacr1307G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 23/03/2011 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi [In Short , ‘Cit(A)’] For Assessment Year 2008-09 Raising Following Grounds:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…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 : "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." 23. It is for the aforesa…

Mpil Steel Structures Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6602/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6602/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S Mpil Steel Structures Ltd, बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income (Formerly Known As M/S Tax 8(2), Room No.209, Vs. Multicolour Project India Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, Trade Star B, 6Th Floor, M K Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400020. Opp J B Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaccm6070B अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vishnu Saraf & Shri Mihir Tanna प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Sachhinand Dubey

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “बी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6602/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/s MPIL Steel Structures Ltd, बनधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income (Formerly known as M/s Tax 8(2), Room No.209, Vs. Multicolour Project India Ltd) Aayakar Bhavan, Trade Star B, 6th floor, M K Road, Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400020. Opp J B Nagar, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400072 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ PAN :AACCM6070B अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee by Shri Vishnu Saraf and Shri Mihir Tanna प्रत्…