Manoharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT

61 ITD 55Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1997#3986 most cited

What is Manoharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT authority for?

An admission made by a party is the best evidence of the point in issue and is decisive unless successfully challenged. A retraction of a statement must be supported by material evidence.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Manoharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT · 61 ITD 55 · admission · retraction · incriminating material · statement under section 132(4) · voluntary statement · section 133A

Sections most often in play

Section 115Section 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 271AAASection 292C

Issues it is cited on

statement under section 132(4)section 292csection 292section 29section 133section 133asection 132(4)section 131incriminating materialundisclosed incomesection 132search and seizure

Judgments citing Manoharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT

SH. SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2765/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Sanjay Jain, Dcit, Cc-01, I-42, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 Vs Pan-Aagpj1372G Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv. & Shri Dishant Seth, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Sanjay Jain, DCIT, CC-01, I-42, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 Vs PAN-AAGPJ1372G Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv. & Shri Dishant Seth, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commis…

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1029/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) x x x x In ManharlalKasturchand Chokshi vs. ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.) x x x x In Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29 (ITAT-Mum) x x x x The Hon'ble ITAT held that the retraction or rather denial is not established by any material/evidence and hence the same cannot be substituted for admission made by the assessee and supported by documentary evidence found. Hence, the additions made were c…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI vs. MR RASHMIN GIRDHARILAL RUGHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2143/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

…ve existed." No such evidence have existed." No such evidence of statement having been of statement having been recorded under duress has been brought on record. recorded under duress has been brought on record. c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT Ahd), it has been held that "6... It is well Ahd), it has been held that "6... It is well-settled in law that as settled in law that as admission by a party is the best evidence of the admission by a party is the bes…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN-CIRCLE 4(1), MUMBAI vs. MR RASHMIN GIRDHARILAL RUGHANI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross

ITA 2142/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR

…ve existed." No such evidence have existed." No such evidence of statement having been of statement having been recorded under duress has been brought on record. recorded under duress has been brought on record. c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT c. In the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi, 61 ITD 55 (ITAT Ahd), it has been held that "6... It is well Ahd), it has been held that "6... It is well-settled in law that as settled in law that as admission by a party is the best evidence of the admission by a party is the bes…

M/S. KAKDA STEELS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…pon the person giving the statement to prove that the statement given by him was factually incorrect or was untenable in law. This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.), and also in the case of Hotel Kiran v. A CIT [1971] 82 ITR 453 (Pune). Apart from the above legal lacunae, the appellant's retraction also suffers from other procedural defects. The appellant, being responsible for the functioning of the manufacturing unit, voluntarily gave statement u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.01.2014, which…

M/S. DHARAM IMPEX,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1580/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

…s upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is IT(SS)A…

M/S. MANIPRABHA IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1579/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

…s upon assessee. Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is IT(SS)A…

M/S SAI APARTMENTS & INFRASTRUCTURE,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, C-6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 940/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36

…unless there is evidence of pressure or coercion. The facts of each case have to be considered to reach the conclusion whether retraction was possible or not as there can be no universal rule.' In the case of Manharial Kasurchand Chokshs vs. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (And.), it was held that: 'Proof of threat or coercion is necessary for valid retraction. The allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed ITA 940 /CHD/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 Page 6 of 35 by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough.' The Ld. AR has failed to establish that there was any coercion while accepting the d…

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e exclusive knowledge of the partners of the assessee, one disclosed in full consciousness, were binding on the assessee, as no contrary is proved. To support his submission, the ld. CIT-DR relied on the decision of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi Vs ACIT (1997) 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.). The retraction of assessee is suffered from other procedural defects. The assessee being responsible for execution of project voluntarily gives statement under section 133A on a particular of times. It does not indicate any sort of pressure or coercion but alert presence of mind and clarity of thought of the person who was deposing. In othe…

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e exclusive knowledge of the partners of the assessee, one disclosed in full consciousness, were binding on the assessee, as no contrary is proved. To support his submission, the ld. CIT-DR relied on the decision of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi Vs ACIT (1997) 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.). The retraction of assessee is suffered from other procedural defects. The assessee being responsible for execution of project voluntarily gives statement under section 133A on a particular of times. It does not indicate any sort of pressure or coercion but alert presence of mind and clarity of thought of the person who was deposing. In othe…

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…e exclusive knowledge of the partners of the assessee, one disclosed in full consciousness, were binding on the assessee, as no contrary is proved. To support his submission, the ld. CIT-DR relied on the decision of Manharlal Kasturchand Choksi Vs ACIT (1997) 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.). The retraction of assessee is suffered from other procedural defects. The assessee being responsible for execution of project voluntarily gives statement under section 133A on a particular of times. It does not indicate any sort of pressure or coercion but alert presence of mind and clarity of thought of the person who was deposing. In othe…

SACHIN PAREEK,SURAT vs. DCIT (CENTREL) CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1683/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (And.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is admitte…

M/S. SUN DIAM,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1578/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (And.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is admitte…

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY HUF,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1367/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (And.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is admitte…

M/S. NAZAR IMPEX PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-4,, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1365/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Anoop Y. Jain, Manish S Jain, Sun Diam, Sachin R Parekh allegation that the assessee was tortured and harassed by the search team and was forced to make an admission is not enough [Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (And.)]. The Mumbai Tribunal, in the case of Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29, has held that allegations of torture and harassment were unacceptable when independent witnesses were present at the time of search. Mere filing of a letter retracting the statement was not held to be rebuttal of the presumption that what is admitte…

THE ITO 3(2), INDORE vs. M/S. APEX REALITIES, INDORE

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

ITA 912/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…No.899 & 912/Ind/2018 the statement to prove that the statement given by him was factually incorrect or was untenable in law. This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v.ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.), and also in the case of Hotel Kiran v. ACIT [1971] 82 ITR 453 (Pune). Apart from the above legal lacunae, the appellant's retraction also suffers from other procedural defects. The appellant, being responsible for the functioning of the business, voluntarily gave statement u/ s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on15/09/2017, which does not i…

M/S. APEX REALITIES,INDORE vs. THE ITO 3(2), INDORE

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

ITA 899/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…No.899 & 912/Ind/2018 the statement to prove that the statement given by him was factually incorrect or was untenable in law. This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v.ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.), and also in the case of Hotel Kiran v. ACIT [1971] 82 ITR 453 (Pune). Apart from the above legal lacunae, the appellant's retraction also suffers from other procedural defects. The appellant, being responsible for the functioning of the business, voluntarily gave statement u/ s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on15/09/2017, which does not i…

SHRI SAYYED HAMID ALI,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…prove that the statement given by him was factually incorrect or was untenable in law. 8 Sayyed Hamid Ali ITANo.38/Ind/2017 This view is supported by the Decision of the Tribunal Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi vs. ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd), and also in the case of Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT [1971] 82 ITR 453 (Pune) Apart from the above legal lacunae, the appellant’s retraction also suffers from other procedural defects. The appellant being responsible for the functioning of the business, voluntarily gave statement u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.07.2011 which does not indi…

M.S, ULTIMATE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 134/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17

…the person giving the statement to prove that the statement given by him was factually incorrect or was untenable in law. e)This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Manharlal Kasturchand Chokshi v. ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.), and also in the case of Hotel Kiran v. ACIT [1971] 82 ITR 453 (Pune). f) Apart from the above legal lacunae, the appellant's retraction also suffers from other procedural defects. The appellant, being responsible for the functioning of the firm, voluntarily gave statement u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 02.02.2014, which does not…

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 360/COCH/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-2016

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…y to establish the truth of these recitals. According to the Assessing Officer, for a retraction to be valid, threat or coercion has to be proved. He relied on the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Manoharlal Kasturchand Chokshi vs. ACIT (61 ITD 55). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Carpenters Classics (Exim) (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (108 ITD 142) wherein it was held that when a statement was made voluntary and was not alleged to have been obtained under threat or coercion onus was on assessee to prove that declaration was made under any misconcep…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2