Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Asst CIT 14(1), Mumbai vs. Sanjay B Pahariya, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

…ed upon by department; and - cross-examine relied upon witnesses, are basic rights available with an assessee, and no reason need be stated by any person for exercising said rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) has also upheld the right of assessee to cross examine the evidences relied upon by assessing officer. iv) In the remand proceedings, the AO has objected to the admission of the certificate from the structural engineer by questioning his independence. It is important to note that the said certificate clearly stipulates that there is no sign…

Prakash Manekji Shah, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…iven any opportunity of cross examining such persons who had made statements about the transaction being sham. The failure to afford opportunity to cross examine, runs contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Challaram, 125 ITR 713 (SC).” Grounds raided by the Revenue are as under:– 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Kanchanwala Gems Vs. JCIT 288 ITR 10(SC) and Hon'ble High Court's decision in the case of Vijay Protein, Sanjay Oil Cake Industries, etc.. 2. On the facts a…

Bhupendra C. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD II) Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 1350/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 1987-88) I.T.A. No. 1351/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 1988-89) I.T.A. No. 1352/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 1989-90) Shri Bhupendra C. Dalal DCIT OSD II/CR 7 4th Floor Bhupen Chambers Vs. Ground Floor Aayakar Bhavan Dalal Street, Fort M.K. Road Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 1625/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 1988-89) I.T.A. No. 1627/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year 1989-90) DCIT OSD II/CR 7 Shri Bhupendra C. Dalal 4th Floor Vs. Bhup…

Reshma Emterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…he appellant in this case. However, the AO did not provide the opportunity of cross examination of said parties to the appellant in spite of specific request made by the appellant. The HonThile Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held that before the income-tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the persons giving such evidence. The law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…he appellant in this case. However, the AO did not provide the opportunity of cross examination of said parties to the appellant in spite of specific request made by the appellant. The HonThile Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held that before the income-tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the persons giving such evidence. The law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land…

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

…he appellant in this case. However, the AO did not provide the opportunity of cross examination of said parties to the appellant in spite of specific request made by the appellant. The HonThile Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held that before the income-tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the persons giving such evidence. The law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land…

Reliable Automotive P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Nabin Kumar Pradhan

…hta v/s ACIT, ITA no.58 of 2001; ii) M/s. R.W. Promotions P. Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.1489 of 2013; iii) Andaman Timber Industries v/s CIT, Civil Appeal no.4228 of 2008; iv) DCIT v/s Shri Rajeev Kalathil, ITA no.6727/Mum./2015; v) K ishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT, 125 ITR 713; vi) ACIT v/s Tarla R. Shah, ITA no.5295/Mum./2013; vii) Balaji Textile Ind. P. Ltd. v/s ITO, 49 ITD 177; viii) Hiralal Chunnilal Jain v/s ITO, ITA no.4547/Mum./2014, etc.; ix) Ramesh Kumar & Co. v/s ACIT, ITA no.2959/Mum./2014 x) Rajeev Kalathil, ITA no.6727/Mum./2012, etc.; xi) Rajesh P. Soni v/s ACIT, 100 TTJ 892; and xii) Diagnostic v/s CIT &…

Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria Ito 17(2)(4) 5 Gr Floor, Kaka Bldg, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ 649 Firdoshi Rd. Dadar R.No. 220 4Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400014 Lalbaug, Mumbai-40013 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapa6428N Appellant By Shri Neel Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By Shri A.K. Dhondial (Dr)

…h requires an opportunity to be heard to be given to a person likely to be affected by a decision is also, like the genus of which it is specie not an inflexible rule having a fixed connotation. The Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v/s. CIT 125 ITR 713 held that the information to be used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should have been given to an assessee in any case the so called confessional statement of "Mihir" or Shri Mukesh M. Chokshi cannot be used against your Appellant in this connection, we draw kind attention of your goodself to t…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Lachhmandas U Talreja (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.7644 & 7645/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Ito-14(2)-3, Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E (राज"व/ Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6581 & 6582/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Ito-14(2)-3, बनाम/ Earnest House, R. No. 306, 3Rd Floor, 282, Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahl 0990 E ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व/ Revenue) : राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidya "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshwala सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 11.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, For Two Consecutive Years, Being Assessment Years (A.Ys.) 2004-05 & 2005-06, Preferred U/S. 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter). The Issues Arising Being (A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06) Lachhmandas U Talreja (Huf) Common, The Same Were Listed For Hearing & Were Accordingly Heard Together – The Facts & Circumstances As Well As The Respective Cases Of The Parties Being Also The Same & Are Being Disposed Of Vide A Common, Consolidated Order.

…to the assessee to cross examine Shri Rakeshkumar M Gupta, despite specific request by the assessee. The statement/s u/s. 133A/131 of the Act could not be relied upon by the A.O., citing the decision by the apex court in Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). The assessee had exhibited day to day stock movement, even as the assessee’s accounts were audited. This fact could not be overlooked. The logical conclusion would be that the assessee had purchased the goods sold from the grey market. The A.O., he noticed, was also aware of this, mentioning that the assessee had made the purchases outside…

Sunil R. Phadtare HUF, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(4), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3697 & 3698/ Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years :2006-07 & 2007-08) Sunil R Phadtare –Huf, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(4), Kalyan 219, Phadtare Sadan, Vs. Lahoti Compound , Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaphs4915P

…ion u/s 10(38), merely on the basis of statement of third party without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, thereby disregarding the legal position pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 and 3, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)-2, Thane has erred in considering the long term capital gain on sale of shares as short term capital gains and thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38), disregarding the factual and legal position that shares were held for more…

Sunil R. Phadtare HUF, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(4), Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3697 & 3698/ Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Years :2006-07 & 2007-08) Sunil R Phadtare –Huf, बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 1(4), Kalyan 219, Phadtare Sadan, Vs. Lahoti Compound , Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. स्थधमी रेखध सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaphs4915P

…ion u/s 10(38), merely on the basis of statement of third party without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the appellant, thereby disregarding the legal position pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 and 3, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A)-2, Thane has erred in considering the long term capital gain on sale of shares as short term capital gains and thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38), disregarding the factual and legal position that shares were held for more…

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. P R Syndicate, Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1895/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2) M/S. P.R. Syndicate 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 492, Chandra Chowk, M.J. Market Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point Pan:Aaffp 9056 L Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Naveen Gupta-Dr Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-25 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee Firm-Engaged In The Business Of Selling Of Cloth Filed Return Of Income On 31.10.2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.50,960/-. The Assessment Was Made U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 15.12.2010 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.88.55 Lakhs.

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1895/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-14(3)(2) M/s. P.R. Syndicate 6th Floor, Earnest House, 492, Chandra Chowk, M.J. Market Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point PAN:AAFFP 9…