Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT

160 Taxmann 233High Court2007#3362 most cited

What is Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The right to cross-examine is not mandatory under income-tax law if the evidence collected by the Assessing Officer is documentary or collateral in nature and the assessee has been provided with copies and an opportunity to respond.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT · CIT v. Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. · cross examination · income tax law · documentary evidence · collateral evidence · opportunity to controvert · assessment validity · section 132 · section 143

Also reported as

293 ITR 565

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 10(38)Section 68Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

arbitrary and capricioussection 132(1)(a)circular tradingaudi alteram partemsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)bogus long term capital gainsection 158bdbogus ltcgprotective assessmentsection 158bbpanchnama

Judgments citing Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

…019) ITAT New Delhi  NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 412 ITR 161 (SC)  CIT vs Sumati Dayal (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC)  Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)  GCT Industries Ltd. vs ACIT 65 ITD 380 ITAT Mumbai Bench  Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs CIT 293 ITR 565 (Allahabad HC)  Marg Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT (2023) 147 taxmann.com 130 (Madras) 9. In the rejoinder submission, the ld. AR of the assessee refuted all the submission of ld. CIT–DR for the Revenue. The ratio of decision relied by ld. CIT–DR is distinguishable or not applicable on the facts of this case. 10. We have considered th…

VISHWAS SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1399/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…there is no legal requirement for cross requirement for cross- examination. Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [293 ITR 56 [293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross 5]: The Court held that the right of cross- examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence is not required under the Income is not required under the Income-tax law. In that cas…

GAUTAM ASHOK CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1398/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…there is no legal requirement for cross requirement for cross- examination. Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [293 ITR 56 [293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross 5]: The Court held that the right of cross- examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence is not required under the Income is not required under the Income-tax law. In that cas…

GAURAV ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…there is no legal requirement for cross requirement for cross- examination. Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [293 ITR 56 [293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross 5]: The Court held that the right of cross- examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence is not required under the Income is not required under the Income-tax law. In that cas…

VIKRAM SAJANLAL CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1391/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

…des directly incriminating statements, cross-\nexamination may be required; however, if the statements are\ncollateral or documentary in nature, there is no legal\nrequirement for cross- examination.\nAllahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT\n[293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross-\nexamination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence\nis not required under the Income-tax law. In that case, copies\nof rough cash books and statements of partners had been\nprovided to the assessee, and the assessee had submitted its\nreplies. The Court held that this constituted adequate\nopport…

TANU GAUTAM CHOKSI ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1345/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

…s directly incriminating statements, cross-\nexamination may be required; however, if the statements are\ncollateral or documentary in nature, there is no legal\nrequirement for cross- examination.\n\nAllahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT\n[293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross-\nexamination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence\nis not required under the Income-tax law. In that case, copies\nof rough cash books and statements of partners had been\nprovided to the assessee, and the assessee had submitted its\nreplies. The Court held that this constituted adequate\nopport…

SIDHARTH ABHAY CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1344/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 153A

…des directly incriminating statements, cross-\nexamination may be required; however, if the statements are\ncollateral or documentary in nature, there is no legal\nrequirement for cross- examination.\nAllahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT\n[293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross-\nexamination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence\nis not required under the Income-tax law. In that case, copies\nof rough cash books and statements of partners had been\nprovided to the assessee, and the assessee had submitted its\nreplies. The Court held that this constituted adequate\nopport…

ASHISH SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1341/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

…there is no legal requirement for cross requirement for cross- examination. Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT Allahabad High Court, Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT [293 ITR 56 [293 ITR 565]: The Court held that the right of cross 5]: The Court held that the right of cross- examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence examination of persons from whom AO has collected evidence is not required under the Income is not required under the Income-tax law. In that cas…

VINEET SUDHAKARRAO,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, WARD 4(1)(3), BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR)
Section 144B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 Vineet Sudhakarrao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D-904 Purva Fountain Square, Ward – 4(1)(3), Marathahalli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. PAN – ANBPS 8102 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 10.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, D…

ITO -24(2)(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA, HUF, MUMBAI

ITA 4013/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “E” Bench, Mumbai. Before Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4013/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2012-13) ITO-24(2)(1) Vs. Kailash Chandra Gupta HUF 608, Income Tax Office C-403, Runwal Elegante Lalbaug, Parel Lokhandwala Complex Mumbai-400 012. Oshiwara, Andheri West (Appellant) Mumbai-400 053. PAN : AAAHK4439D (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajesh Sanghvi, CA Department by Shri P.D. Chougule Date of Hearing 01.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.07.2024 ORDER Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :- The appellant has filed return of income on 5.6.2012 declaring…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ot be given. On the other hand, if it is required to be given, the issue may be remitted back to the AO to give such opportunity. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 565 (All) wherein it was held that: "It was not in dispute that the adverse material which was found by the Income-tax authorities during the course of search in the business premises of 'V' had been confronted to the assessee who was having regular business dealing with the said firm. Some of the entries, recorded in the rough cash book seized durin…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ot be given. On the other hand, if it is required to be given, the issue may be remitted back to the AO to give such opportunity. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 565 (All) wherein it was held that: "It was not in dispute that the adverse material which was found by the Income-tax authorities during the course of search in the business premises of 'V' had been confronted to the assessee who was having regular business dealing with the said firm. Some of the entries, recorded in the rough cash book seized durin…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ot be given. On the other hand, if it is required to be given, the issue may be remitted back to the AO to give such opportunity. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 565 (All) wherein it was held that: "It was not in dispute that the adverse material which was found by the Income-tax authorities during the course of search in the business premises of 'V' had been confronted to the assessee who was having regular business dealing with the said firm. Some of the entries, recorded in the rough cash book seized durin…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ot be given. On the other hand, if it is required to be given, the issue may be remitted back to the AO to give such opportunity. For this purpose, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. v. CIT, 293 ITR 565 (All) wherein it was held that: "It was not in dispute that the adverse material which was found by the Income-tax authorities during the course of search in the business premises of 'V' had been confronted to the assessee who was having regular business dealing with the said firm. Some of the entries, recorded in the rough cash book seized durin…

PNK SPACE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3286/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pnk Space Development Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4) Limited Mumbai 601, Purva Plaza, Shimpoli Road, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 245D(4)Section 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM PNK Space Development Private Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1)(4) Limited Mumbai 601, Purva Plaza, Shimpoli Road, Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai-400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAFCP 7042 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh Date of Hearing : 31.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), Nat…

AAA TELESHOPPING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9633/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Shri Chandra Mohan Gargaaa Teleshopping Pvt. Vs. The Acit Ltd., 199, Rajdhani Circle – 1(1) Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 034 Pan No. Aafca 3709 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By --None-- Revenue By Ms. Anubhaa Tah, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm :

Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. G. S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AAA Teleshopping Pvt. Vs. The ACIT Ltd., 199, Rajdhani Circle – 1(1) Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 034 PAN No. AAFCA 3709 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by --None-- Revenue by Ms. Anubhaa Tah, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 04.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 09.10.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi dated 14.10.2019 for Assessment Yea…

KETAN JAYANT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, THANE

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

ITA 568/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “H” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (JM) I.T.A. No. 568/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2013-14) Vs. DCIT, Circle-1 Ketan Jayant Shah Shop No. 1, Datta 6th Floor, Ashar IT Niwas, Gokhale Road Park, Road No. 16Z Naupada, Thane-W Wagle Estate Maharashtra-400 602. Thane Maharashtra-400 PAN : AOXPS3406b 604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.P. Department by Shri Prakash Kishinchandani Date of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed…

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ITA No.155/Bang/2022 M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust For Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: NA M/s. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd) No.1, Tamaka Vs. Principal CIT (Central) Kolar 563 103 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATS5344P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

PAWAN KUMAR DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6590/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Dua. So far as the arguments of the ld. Counsel that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine is concerned, the ld. DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 293 ITR 565 submitted that right of cross examination from whom the AO has collected the evidence is not required under the Income Tax Law and such assessment was valid under the Act. She submitted that the Revenue has to consider the surrounding circumstances and they are entitled to find out the reality of the recitals made in the said documents. Referring…

PAWAN KUMAR DUA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 28, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6588/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Dua. So far as the arguments of the ld. Counsel that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine is concerned, the ld. DR referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 293 ITR 565 submitted that right of cross examination from whom the AO has collected the evidence is not required under the Income Tax Law and such assessment was valid under the Act. She submitted that the Revenue has to consider the surrounding circumstances and they are entitled to find out the reality of the recitals made in the said documents. Referring…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2