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 366,470 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

M/S Vijaya Woven Sacks Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessees are allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…ITA.474 & 475/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A No.474/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 2. 1. I.T.A No.475/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) 1. M/s. Vijaya Woven Sacks P. Ltd, PAN : AAACV6746P 2. M/s. Vijaya Poly Plast PAN : AACFV2654H No.182 – B, Industrial Area, Bykampady, Mangaluru .. Appellants v. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Mangaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Venkatesan, CA Revenue by : Shri. K. R. Narayan, JCIT Heard on : 01.06.2016 Pronounced on : 10.06.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAH…

Shantidevi P. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed in part

ITA 2800/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2800/M/15 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Smt. Shantidevi P. Mehta Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Prop. Kore Steel (India) 16(2)(2) Vs. 450, Patthe Bapurao Marg, Mumbai Lotwala Building, Near Sindhi Gally, Mumbai - 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpm0722A

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…ine the Mukesh Chokshi has been granted to the assessee by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, addition is not required to be made in the interest of justice. Specifically in view of the law settled in Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). It is also argued that the purchase was an off market transaction, therefore, the confirmation taken from the National Stock Exchange is not liable to be relied upon hence the addition is wrong against law and facts. It is also specifically argued that the assessee filed all the evidence such as contract notes, bank statement, ledger accoun…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…s that led in support, viz. the copy of the assessee’s account in the books of SJ (f.ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07). Accordingly, the assessee’s reliance on the decisions in the case of CBI vs. V. C. Shukla, AIR 1998 SC 1406 and Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713(SC) would be of no assistance thereto. We decide accordingly, confirming the impugned addition. 62. Ground # 7: Pages 1 and 2 of Annexure A1 of the seized material found from the residence of SN reflects payment/s of GPB 20,000 (Rs.18 lacs) to the assessee as on 25.10.2006. SN, per his deposition u/s. 132(4) dated 11.01.2007, explained the same…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…s that led in support, viz. the copy of the assessee’s account in the books of SJ (f.ys. 2005-06 and 2006-07). Accordingly, the assessee’s reliance on the decisions in the case of CBI vs. V. C. Shukla, AIR 1998 SC 1406 and Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713(SC) would be of no assistance thereto. We decide accordingly, confirming the impugned addition. 62. Ground # 7: Pages 1 and 2 of Annexure A1 of the seized material found from the residence of SN reflects payment/s of GPB 20,000 (Rs.18 lacs) to the assessee as on 25.10.2006. SN, per his deposition u/s. 132(4) dated 11.01.2007, explained the same…

DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR
Section 40A(7)(b)

…h deposits made by Sri S. M. Jhunjhunwala in his Axis Bank is undisclosed income of your Petitioner Co. and in this connection reliance is placed on following case laws: (i) CBI v. v.c. Shukla & Ors, AIR 1998 SC 1406. (ii) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), at 723 (iii) K. P. Verghese v. ITO, Ernakulam & Anr. 131 ITR 597(SC) (iv) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, (1980) (supra) held that: 58. The CIT-A however confirmed the order of the AO observing as follows: I have carefully considered the submission of the Ld. A.r . The assessing officer has discussed the…

D.C.I.T. RG. 9(1), Mumbai vs. Acube Engineering & Consultancy Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 6050/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 6050/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Shetty
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…even statement, of the asstt. Manager of the bank were never the subject- matter of cross-examination by the assessee. In these circumstances, the decisions of. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand. Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 360: (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. CIT(2001) 166 CTR (SC) 509: (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) t66 come to the rescue of the assessee. The Hon'ble apex Court in these decisions have categorically held that unless the contents of the affidavits, etc. are confronted giving opportunity of cross- examination, the same cannot be read in evidence against…

ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Ashwinkumar Chhanganlal Satiya, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7168/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2003-04
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…n to the assessee in spite of specific request so made. The ld. C.O. Nos.19 & 20/Mum/2015 Mr. Ashwinkumar Chhaganlal Satiya Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), wherein, it was held that before the income tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the statement can be controverted and opportunity to cross examination should be given and if such opportunity was not provided, the addition which is based on such statement cannot survived. It…

ITO 14(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Ashwinkumar Chhanganlal Satiya, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7167/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2016AY 2002-03
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

…n to the assessee in spite of specific request so made. The ld. C.O. Nos.19 & 20/Mum/2015 Mr. Ashwinkumar Chhaganlal Satiya Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), wherein, it was held that before the income tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the statement can be controverted and opportunity to cross examination should be given and if such opportunity was not provided, the addition which is based on such statement cannot survived. It…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Softline Creations (P) Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises

ITA 744/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Vijay Pal Raoito, Vs. M/S. Softline Creations (P) Ltd., Ward-9(1), Room 38, Rani Jhanshi Road, No.190, Jhandewallan, New Delhi C.R.Building, New Pan:Aaecs6591B Delhi (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Amrapally Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…n the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE dated 22nd September 2015 in Civil Appeal No.4288/2006. He has also relied upon the following judgement:- 1. Prakash Chand Nahata Vs.Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC) Page No. 5 2. Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), 3. CIT Vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del) 4. Alok Aggarwal Vs. DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del) 7. Alternatively the ld AR has submitted the alleged bogus share holders are all incorporated and active companies as per record of the ROC and the master data detail along with PAN was also submitted before the AO by the assessee. All the…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 69C

…1 CO No.249/M/14 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ “डी” म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI सर्वश्री बी.आर.बास्करन, ऱेखा सदस्य एवं संदीप गोसाई, न्याययक सदस्य के सभऺ BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, RNA Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .…

M/S Roger Enterpriese P. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi

ITA/439/2003HC Delhi04 Feb 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 143Section 148Section 260A

…f Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) and of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Praveen Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). 22. Ms. Gurung, learned counsel for the Revenue, on the other hand pointed out that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the Assessee for cross- examination of the witnesses whose statements were recorded in the assessment proceedings. The Assessee chose not to cross-examine Mr. Jhunjhunwala despite sufficient opportunities.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S D.K.B. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1722/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Senior DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…aterial/statement etc. will be rendered on unreliable and additions made on the basis of such material/statement etc. shall be rendered illegal. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in the case of R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad 176 ITR 169 (SC), 125 ITR 713 (SC), Jindal Vegetable (order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA no. 428 of 2007, 174 Taxmann 440 (Raj.) and Laxman Bhai Patel (order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 22.07.2008 in ITR no. 41/1997). 4.3.5. Further, in the case of N.P. Garodia (order dated 13.01.2009 of Hon'ble P & H High Court in ITA no. 808 of 2008) and in the case of Brij P…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Vimal Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1211/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…d documents, as held by the Ld.CIT(A), do not demonstrate that cash payment was made to the assessee. He submitted that the Revenue has not discharged the onus that lay upon it. He relied on the following case laws. 6: (i) Kisnichand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (S.C.) (ii) Laxmnbhai S Patel vs. CIT(2008) 174 Taxman 206 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar (2008) 172 Taxman 74 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta(2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the written submissions made by the Ld.CIT(A) as well as that made before the Tribunal which is…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Vinod Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1603/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 133A

…d documents, as held by the Ld.CIT(A), do not demonstrate that cash payment was made to the assessee. He submitted that the Revenue has not discharged the onus that lay upon it. He relied on the following case laws. 6: (i) Kisnichand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (S.C.) (ii) Laxmnbhai S Patel vs. CIT(2008) 174 Taxman 206 (Guj.) (iii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar (2008) 172 Taxman 74 (Del.) (iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta(2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 6. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the written submissions made by the Ld.CIT(A) as well as that made before the Tribunal which is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…efore, in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Anand Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228/2006 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), it was also submitted that when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross examine and the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee, then no addition can be made on the basis of retracted statements. Learned counsel of the assessee also submitted that it was for the revenue to ru…

Mr. Sanjeev Nanda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…efore, in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Anand Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise in Civil Appeal No. 4228/2006 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), it was also submitted that when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross examine and the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee, then no addition can be made on the basis of retracted statements. Learned counsel of the assessee also submitted that it was for the revenue to ru…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…llant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits.64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, A.P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 4366/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…llant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits.64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, A.P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V.…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 2561/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…llant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits.64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, A.P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V.…

M/S. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3967/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Income Tax Officer, R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Ward-38(2), New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mehta Construction Co., Vs. Jcit, Circle-62(1), R-695, 2Nd Floor, New Civic Centre, New Delhi Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ita Nos. 2561 & 4366/Del/2012 Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Acit, Circle-38(1), Vs. Mehta Construction Co., New Delhi R-695, Iind Floor, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi (Pan: Aahfm3503D) Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Narender Chillar, Adv. Department By : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee-Company As Well As By The Revenue. The Appeals In Ita Nos. 3967/Del/2010 For A.Y. 2007-08 & 474/Del/2015 For A.Y. 2010-11 Are Filed By The Assessee Company. The Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Narender Chillar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 145(3)

…llant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income-Tax. V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC)] Kishinchand Chellaram. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay City 11. 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits.64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Setty and Sons. V. Commissioner of Income- Tax, A.P & 62 ITR 528 (AP) Yakub Versey Laljee & Another V.…