Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713Supreme Court of India1980#46 most cited

What is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

962

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT · 125 ITR 713 · natural justice · cross-examination · evidence · third party statement · retracted statement · opportunity to rebut · assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 148Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bbsection 292cretracted statementdumb documentssection 132(4a)on-moneyloose papersdocuments seizedlive linksection 34section 69bsection 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Dilip B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the Cross Objections for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14

ITA 2349/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…Dilip B. Jiwarajka assessee’s involvement in jacking up the prices of the shares with a view to earn artificial gains. The additions so made could not be sustained in the eyes of law as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713) and also in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (CA No.4228 of 2006 dated 02/09/2015) wherein it has been held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA nos

ITA 195/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.110/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-2, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.195/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2022

Section 143(3)

…oviding opportunity of cross examinations of persons, whose statement has been relied upon for making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. We also note that not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witn…

Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA nos

ITA 110/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.110/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-2, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.195/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2022

Section 143(3)

…oviding opportunity of cross examinations of persons, whose statement has been relied upon for making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. We also note that not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witn…

The Dy. CIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Shri Saurabhkumar Mukutlal Gupta, Anand

ITA 1589/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Pramod M Jagtap, Vice President And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2009-10 The Dy. CIT, Anand Shri Saurabhkumar Circle, Anand M Gupta, Vs 501, (Appellant) Parijat Apartments, 5th Floor, Nr. Vyayamshala, Loliya Bhagol Area, Anand-388001 PAN: ACKPG9748F (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 22-08-2022 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Revenue against o…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ashrita Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…ment of loan in subsequent year, no addition was to be made in current year on account of cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 6.3. The Ld. Senior Counsel also further relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Heirs and Legal Representative of Late Laxmanhai S. Patel vs. CIT reported [2008] 327 ITR 290 (Guj.) wherein it was held that if any material is not confronted to an assessee by the Assessing Officer, it would not constitute as “admissible evidence”. Hence addition made based on such evidence is…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Gandhar Yarn Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Mane
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.907/Mum./2018 (Assessment Year : 2009–10) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–8(4), Mumbai v/s M/s. Gandhar Yarn Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre …………….Respondent 37–40, Subhash road Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057 PAN – AADCG4021F Cross Objection no.78/Mum./2019 (Arising out of ITA No.907/Mum./2018) (Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/s. Gandhar Yarn Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor, Sunteck Centre ……………. Cross Objector 37–40, Subhash road (O…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ontained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (WP NO. 546 OF 2022 dated February 15, 2022) 5. Recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant ye…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Manish Vijay Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ontained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (WP NO. 546 OF 2022 dated February 15, 2022) 5. Recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant ye…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ontained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (WP NO. 546 OF 2022 dated February 15, 2022) 5. Recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant ye…

The Dy CIT (It)-Circle-3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Urvi Manish Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…ontained in letter is not relevant material". -Secondly if any document or material is relied by the AO for reopening the assessment the same should be provided to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to meet its case. Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). -Tata Capital Financial Services Limited v. ACIT (Bombay High Court) (WP NO. 546 OF 2022 dated February 15, 2022) 5. Recording the reasons for re-opening the assessment merely on the basis of the Base Note without application of independent mind by the AO is void. Base Note did not show that any amount was deposited during the relevant ye…

Vasudev Ramprasad Bhattar (HUF), Surat vs. Pr. CIT, Surat - 1, Surat

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

ITA 1/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Court Hearing) Vasudev Ramprasad Bhattar Vs The Principal Commissioner Of (Huf), Income Tax -1, 2010-11, Vaibhav Apartment, Surat. Bhatar Road, Surat-395007. Pan : Aafhv9911C Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…read with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that when the fact is substantially within the knowledge of any person, burden of providing that fact is upon him. Such stand of Revenue is contrary to the decision of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713/4 Taxman 29 (SC). The Hon'ble High Court further held that in view of said decision, the burden was on the department to show that the amount of demand drafts found to be credited in the assessee’s account in the books of account of GMDC belonged to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on record and the assessee could not be expected to expla…

Sumeera Banadey, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 2090/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4272/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ Ito-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7Th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash Chsl, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arwps1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-45, Mumbai, Dated 29.03.2018 For A.Y.2014-15 & Dated 12.03.2019 For Ay. 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…the AO’s refusal to allow opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee, rendered his reliance on the third party statements to be unsustainable. This view of ours finds support from the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713) and also in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (62 taxmann.com 3) A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 Dheeraj Babulal Shah wherein it was held that, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the adjudicating authority wishes to rely upon, is a serious flaw which renders the order impugned to be a nullity. Similar view ha…

Milind Kishenchand Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.10 raised by assessee is allowed and Ground No

ITA 3201/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalmilind Kishenchand Agrawal, Sun Enterprises, 605/A, Dhawalgiri Building, Plot No.13, Sher-E-Punjab Society, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aacpa1340F ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-20(2)(2), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Shailesh M. Bandi Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh M. BandiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 40Section 43BSection 69C

…Other than documentary evidence has filed by the assessee 6 ITA No. 3201/Mum/2016-Milind Kishenchand Agrawal before the authorities below, he relied upon the following judicial pronouncement in his favour as under: i. Kishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Ltd. v/s CIT, Mumbai – Bombay High Court IT APP No. 5604 of 2010 (2012) iii. ITO v/s Peranand (2007) 107 TTJ 395 (jd) (Trib) ITO v/s Puspal Kumar Das (ITAT Kolkata) dt 19th December 2015 iv. v. Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT (ITA No. 2959/Mum/2014 dt. 28-11-2014 AY 2009- 10) vi. DCIT v/s Rajeev G Kalanthi ( IT…

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 153CSection 68

…(ignoring his retraction) and that too without allowing/facilitating the assessee to cross-examine him, which action of AO was bad in law. And for this view of ours, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713); and also in case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (62 taxmann.com 3) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses on whose statements the adjudicating authority wishes to rely upon, is a serious flaw which renders the order impugned to be a nullity. Similar view has been…

Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamngar, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- I.T.A Nos. 54 & 55/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 4 Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 t…

Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamngar, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…rting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- I.T.A Nos. 54 & 55/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No 4 Shri Mukeshkumar Vrajlal Akbari (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 t…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ta High Court and to that extent the decision of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the IT…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ta High Court and to that extent the decision of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the IT…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…ta High Court and to that extent the decision of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the IT…