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.

How many judgments cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT?

962 judgments on BharatTax cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 148.

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713)

Akshita Pankaj Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7925/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1141-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ce which would link 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…

Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-2207-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ce which would link 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…

Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikvat Through L/H Pankaj V Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7921/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ce which would link 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…

Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7919/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8464-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ce which would link 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…

A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata vs. M/S Rohit & Co., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1427/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey

Section 131

…M/s. Rohit & Co., AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1425 & 1427/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Rohit & Co. (PAN: AADFR3190D) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2021 For the Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT For the Respondent Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate ORDER Per Bench: Both these appeals are preferred by the revenue which are…

A.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata vs. M/S Rohit & Co., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey

Section 131

…M/s. Rohit & Co., AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ –“B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice President (KZ) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 1425 & 1427/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 ACIT, Circle-36, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Rohit & Co. (PAN: AADFR3190D) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 06.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.10.2021 For the Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT For the Respondent Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate ORDER Per Bench: Both these appeals are preferred by the revenue which are…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. M/S. Dangayach Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 33/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, C-59, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Central Circle-1, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCC 7176 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 03/JP/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 33/JP/2020) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav, Income Tax Officer-21(2)(3), 175, 5Th Floor, 845, Shivneri Vs. Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Piramal Building, B.J. Marg, Byculla West, Chambers Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400011. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Acspj 3509 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Devendra Jain, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay J. Sethi, DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. Meenakshi Prakash Jadhav 8 request to provide opportunity of cross examination of said parties. The Assessment order passed is bad in law being in violation of the principles of natural justice as held by Supreme court in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006). 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by Assessing officer disregarding the factual matrix of the case. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, de…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1190/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Prakash Chand Kothari DCIT, Vs. B-4A, Kothari House, Prithviraj Road, Central Circle-02, C- Scheme, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPBK2884R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1298/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke T…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1190/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Shri Prakash Chand Kothari DCIT, Vs. B-4A, Kothari House, Prithviraj Road, Central Circle-02, C- Scheme, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAPBK2884R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1298/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke T…