What is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

How many judgments cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT?

396 judgments on BharatTax cite Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (30 ITR 181), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 69A, Section 147.

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (30 ITR 181)

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2650/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2649/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…

Sri. Nagesh Ramaiah, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 437/BANG/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 144Section 234Section 68

…ght to have appreciated that the appellant having produced the affidavits from the donors which is a valid piece of evidence and same could not be discarded as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh Et Co., Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181, and consequently deleted the addition made by the learned assessing officer, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] and the learned assessing officer were not justified in law in rejecting the claim of the appellant unreasonably without proper appreciation of the proofs established as no pr…

Chirag Rajendra Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4086 To 4088/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Mr. Chirag Rajendra Shah Ito, Ward 24(1)(4), 502, 5Th Floor, C-13, D-305, Siddhi Vinayak Tower, बनाम/ Off Tank Road, Orlem, Malad, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-64 Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afxps 7904 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. K. Sharma & Ms. Taneshka Sharma ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…spite the fact that assessee had specifically asked for the same. h) The appellant has placed reliance on various decisions, namely, CIT v. Smt. Laxmi Mehrotra [(2014)] 222 Taxmann lll(Mag.) (All. HQ], Nivi Trading Ltd v. UOI (Bom)(HC), Mehta Parikh & Co Ltd. 30 ITR 181 (SC), Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd v ITO (Bombay High Court), Ramjidas Mahaiiram (1936) 42 ITR 25 (Cal), CIT v Dumraon Cold Storage & Refrigeration Service (1974) 97 ITR 137 (Patna), CIT v Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1972) 82 ITR 821 (SC), Thyyabali Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 661JTR 147 (SC) etc. 6. Considering the above submissions, as re…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Himachal Fibres Ltd

ITA/263/2018HC Delhi28 Feb 2018

Bench: Him, The Ao Concluded That The Identity Of The Shareholders & The Genuineness Of The Transaction Had Not Been Established & Accordingly Brought To Tax The Said Amount. The Cit(A), Who Sought A Remand Report, Noted That The Ao Had Recorded In The Course Of His Order That The Assessee Was A

Section 68

…t." It is noteworthy that in period under consideration for AY 2007-08 said decision was fully applicable. 7. Further, the case of assessee is also covered on facts noted in learned CIT(A) order by Hon'ble Apex court decision in case of Mehta Parikh, 30 ITR 181 that without examining the deponent affidavits cannot be straightway rejected. Also noted here is the aspect of lack of enquiry by AO from share holders u/s.68 which is repeatedly held in various decisions by Jurisdictional Delhi high court in decisions mentioned in assessee's paper book at sr no. 13 namely Hon'ble Delhi high court decision…

DCIT Cen Cir 1(3), Mumbai vs. Haresh R. Majethia, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3045/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit Cen. Cir 1(3) Haresh R Majethia, Mumbai 7, Pathai Niwas, N S Road, Vs. Mulund (W) Mumbai 400 080 Pan Aeqpm5542P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita RanjanFor Respondent: Ms. Ritika Agarwal

Section 131Section 153ASection 68

…nce of party and capacity of the party to lend. Thus in any case, the amount advanced by Shri Mahesh Bapat cannot be treated as unexplained credit in the hands of the appellant. The AR has further relied upon the ruling in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co.(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and CIT vs. Laul Transport Corporation (2009) 180 Taxman 185 (P&H) 2) M/s Naman Horn Makers Rs.8,25,000/- Naman Home Makers, was duly represented by Shri Vijay H. Gala who had advanced the loan in his individual capacity as well as the firm and he confirmed the loan. He also placed on record the following documents during the assessment proce…

Dixit Processors, Bhiwandi vs. ITO WD 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 937/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dixit Processors, Ito-1(1) H. No. 1581, New Kaneri, Kalyan Vs. Near Jain Compound, Kalyan Road, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Aaefd1227G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/01/2017

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had requested for an opportunity for cross-examination. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided on the issue of allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the parties. In Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that cross-examination of the deponent is necessary to challenge the statements made by him in the affidavit. Rejection of an affidavit is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross-examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do s…