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 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 367,154 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 147 Section 132 Section 153A Section 153C Section 148 Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb section 292c retracted statement dumb documents section 132(4a)on-money loose papers documents seized live link section 34 section 69b section 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1996/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…ation not provided, the same renders the assessment invalid. For this proposition, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) The Ld. AR in this regard submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross examine which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons: a) That Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri has only identified the JPACK ledger pertaining to the assessee and that ther…

Ardent Steels Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 337/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 337/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2020-21)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…g the assessee, the same is liable to be ignored. Ld. AR placed his judgment on the following decisions: 21 Ardent Steels Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 12. Ld. AR placed his reliance on the following decision: I. Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713(SC). II. Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2017) 398 ITR 198 (Del.), SLP dismissed vide (2024) 461 ITR 339 (SC). III. ACIT vs Sun & Sun Inframetric P. Ltd. (2024) 460 ITR 258 (Chhattisgarh) IV. Heirs & LRs of Late Laxmanbhai S Patel vs CIT (2010) 327 ITR 290, 304(Guj.). 13. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had kept and deprived off th…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…ntative-not a third party or adversary. The onus was on the assessee to produce or summon him, which was never done. Judicial Principle: A party cannot seek protection under natural justice after having slept on the opportunity - Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713). 3. Claim: Addition Without Show Cause = Violation of Natural Justice Rebuttal: The document was confronted during assessment. The AO rightly noted that the sales figures were accepted, but interest was unaccounted for. The assessment order records analysis of this exact page and working. No fresh material was introduced. je 60 Hence, the assess…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 68

…ed that even the statements of the alleged entry providers, Shri Bhawarlal Jain or Shri Pankaj Jain, were not brought on record in the assessment proceedings. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), it was urged that no addition can be made on the basis of third-party statements which are neither furnished to the assessee nor subjected to cross-examination. 8.4 The learned counsel also assailed the reliance placed by the CIT(A) upon judicial precedents. It was contended that the judgment in Pawan Kumar M. Sanghvi (supra) was distinguis…

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…, he must disclose the substance of all such material, though not the sources thereof (Dal Chand & Sons v CIT (1944) 12 ITR 458 (Lah)) to the assessee and if this is not done, the principles of natural justice stand violated (KishinchandChellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); ITO (Addl) v Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker); International Forest Co. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K); STO v Uttareswari Rice Mills (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ag ITO (1972) 83 ITR 778 (Pat); CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC), HarmukhraiDulichand v CIT (1928) 3 ITC 198 (Cal.…

Anil Kumar Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…rt clarified that additions under Section 69A are discretionary and cannot be made where credible explanations are available. Since the authorities ignored this crucial evidence and proceeded purely on presumptions in violation of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC), the addition merits deletion toto. Ground No. 4: Under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) was not justified while not considering the written submission made by appellant for deletion of the demand of Rs. 31,64,116/- which is arbitrary, excessive, and contrary to the principles of natural justice and remanding back the…

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

…completing the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144B, without providing the material or information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon in the case of KishanchandChellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the sale of bitcoin as unexplained income and has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,28,013/ as unexpla…

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat

Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

…Andaman Timber Industries v. Comm. of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No.4288/2006), H.R Mehta v. ACIT (Bom), Kishandchand Appeal No.4288/2006), H.R Mehta v. ACIT (Bom), Kishandchand Appeal No.4288/2006), H.R Mehta v. ACIT (Bom), Kishandchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 (SC), C Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 (SC), CIT vs. JMD Communications IT vs. JMD Communications Pvt Ltd (320 ITR 17(St) (SC), R.W. Promotions Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT Pvt Ltd (320 ITR 17(St) (SC), R.W. Promotions Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT Pvt Ltd (320 ITR 17(St) (SC), R.W. Promotions Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Bom-HC), Sunil Aggarwal 64 taxmann.com 107 (Del HC), Sunil A…

Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 806/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountannt Member Assessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…d the back of assessee for making the addition. If any material is not confronted to an assessee it would not constitute as an "admissible evidence" and hence addition made based on such evidence is to be deleted. Reliance is placed on "Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC)" Opportunity of "cross-examination" has not been afforded: I.T.A No. 806/Ahd/2024 Zalavadiya Kalubhai Mohanbhai, HUF, A.Y. 2015-16 An opportunity of cross-examination has also not been afforded to the assessee It is a settled law that in absence of cross- examination, no addition could have been made based on such statement. Reliance is pl…

Jayvadan Rughnathwala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

ITA 923/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Through Hybrid Mode Before Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth , Accountant Member Assessment Year 2018-19 Jayvadan ITO, Rughnathwala, Ward-1(2)(1) 6/7 Khatodara Ind Vs Surat Service Society, (Respondent) B/h. Sub Jail Katodara, Surat-395002 PAN: AAQPR4348L (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Rasesh Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 17-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-08-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This is an appeal filed against the order dated 09-08- 2024 passed by…

M/S Deeps Special Steels Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Alwar

ITA 1016/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Ojha, CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 50C

…n ITA No. 18 of 2017 (O&M) 9. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), 47-49 7 M/S Deeps Special Steels Ltd., Ludhiana. Ludhiana vs. Prem Pal Gandhi reported in ITA No. 95- 2017 (O&M) wherein it has held that; 10. Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 Material collected 50-88 50,55 (SC) behind the back 11. CIT v. Sham Lal [1981] 127 ITR 816 (Punj. &Har.); of the assessee 89-90 90 cannot be used 12. Meenu Goel vs. ITO in ITA No. 6235/Del/2017 91-98 97 against him 13 Smt. Shikha Dhawan, Vs. ITO ITA No.3035/Del/2018 99-114 113-114 unless the assessee has been allowed a chance to rebut the same. 1…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Pooja Kedia, Jaipuir

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

…were relied upon by the appellant: a. Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) b. JHR. Mehta v. Asstt. CIT [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110(Bom.). C. C. Vasantial& Co. v. CIT 11962) 45 ITR 206 (SC) KishinchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 29/125 ITR 713 (SC), CIT v. Ashish International IT Appeal No. 4299 of 2009, dated 22-2-2011] d. CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 191 Taxman 51/322 ITR 396 (Bom.), State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623 ix) On this issue the appellant has raised the legal issue of denial of natural justice to it, since the AO did not grant opportunity to…

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…ld CIT (A), the assessment so made and addition so sustained is vitiated in law and addition so made is liable to be deleted as such. Reliance was placed on following judgments in support of the aforesaid proposition: (i) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT. [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) (ii) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta. 322 ITR 396 (Del) (iii) Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241. 9. Ld. Counsel further relied on various case laws on the proposition that once the shares are sold through stock exchange and sufficient documentary evidences have been produced in order to support the genuineness of the LTCG cl…

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

…y the AO on the statement of these two persons without allowing any cross-examination to the assessee. The AR has submitted that such reliance is misplaced as per the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chela Ram reported in 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 TIR 214 and other judgments as perthe written submissions furnished by the assessee. It has been held in many cases that cross examination is not required in the case of each & every person if the facts are supported by the documents. The AO has mentioned that Sh. Ajay Kumar Prabhakar and Sh. Raj Kuma…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 153D

Ulka Madhukar Shinde, Panvel vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 600/PUN/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Anthony DsonzaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava

Section 147Section 271

…t without verifying the complete bank account of the appellant. Case laws relied upon: 1. Manveer Singh Vs ITO (TAT Delhi -ITA No. 2976/Del2022 dated 20/06/2023) 2. DashrathbhaiShivabhai Chaudhary Vs ITO (|TAT Ahmedabad) 3. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT Vs S.V. AngidiChettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) 5. CIT VS Divine Leasing & Finance Limited (2001) 248 ITR 338 (Delhi HC) 6. BrijBhushan Lal Praduman Kumar Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) 7. Signature Hotels Pvt Ltd V/s ITO 338 |TR 51 (Delhi HC) 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- in th…

M/S Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2715/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ing an opportunity of cross examination with the concerned persons with whom the appellant had done transactions related to share premium and loans and advances. In this regard, the appellant relies on following decisions: i. Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC). ii. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Mumbai (Bombay High Court) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay). 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds till the disposal of the Appeal.” 3. The brief facts, as gathered from the record, are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of construction and real estate…

M/S. Parvesh Construction Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2714/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Nishit Gandhi

Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ing an opportunity of cross examination with the concerned persons with whom the appellant had done transactions related to share premium and loans and advances. In this regard, the appellant relies on following decisions: i. Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC). u. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Mumbai (Bombay High Court) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay). 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds till the disposal of the Appeal.” 3. The brief facts, as gathered from the record, are that the assessee, a company engaged in the business of construction and real estate d…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani, Rajkot

In the result, Revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 249/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 248 & 249/Rjt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central Circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2Nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, Mg Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amvps 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 248 & 249/RJT/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner of Chetan Nandlal Sangani Income Tax, Central circle– Vs. 309, Shalin Complex, 2, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Rajkot, “Amruta Estate”, 2nd Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 Floor, MG Road, Rajko-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMVPS 5788 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vima…