Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

263 ITR 101High Court2003#308 most cited

What is Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act has no evidentiary value because Section 133A does not empower an Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath.

266

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Paul Mathews & Sons · CIT · Section 133A · survey statement · evidentiary value · statement on oath · admission · Income-tax Officer power · Section 133A(3)(iii) · no oath power

Also reported as

129 Taxmann 41633 Taxmann.com 130

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)section 158bbsurvey under section 133aretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)disallowance of interest expendituresection 133aloose paperssection 132(4)section 132(4a)section 133section 292c

Judgments citing Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam

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

ITA 350/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…nd hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself by made the basis for addition. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT (263 ITR 101) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan & Sons (300 ITR 157). The Ld. AR submitted that this view was supported by the CBDT Circular dated 10/03/2003. I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 6.1 The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Manish Khetan had no knowledge about the business of…

The Central Circle, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunil Kumar, Kollam

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

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…nd hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself by made the basis for addition. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT (263 ITR 101) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan & Sons (300 ITR 157). The Ld. AR submitted that this view was supported by the CBDT Circular dated 10/03/2003. I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 6.1 The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Manish Khetan had no knowledge about the business of…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P.Sunilkumar, Kollam

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

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…nd hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself by made the basis for addition. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT (263 ITR 101) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan & Sons (300 ITR 157). The Ld. AR submitted that this view was supported by the CBDT Circular dated 10/03/2003. I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 6.1 The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Manish Khetan had no knowledge about the business of…

The ACIT, Kollam vs. Sri.P. Sunil Kumar, Kollam

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

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…nd hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot by itself by made the basis for addition. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Paul Mathew & Sons vs. CIT (263 ITR 101) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kader Khan & Sons (300 ITR 157). The Ld. AR submitted that this view was supported by the CBDT Circular dated 10/03/2003. I.T.A. Nos.347-354 etc. /Coch/2017 & C.O. Nos. 33-39, 40-42/Coch/2017 6.1 The Ld. AR submitted that Shri Manish Khetan had no knowledge about the business of…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 761/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 464/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cuke M/s Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., D.C.I.T., Vs. B-5, Vrindavan Apartment, Kings Road, Circle-2, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 2023 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 761/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cu…

M/S Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

ITA 464/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta
Section 147Section 151

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 464/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cuke M/s Angel Infrastructure (P) Ltd., D.C.I.T., Vs. B-5, Vrindavan Apartment, Kings Road, Circle-2, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 2023 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 761/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2009-10 cu…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…8, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), x. Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.) 2.17. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the…

The DCIT, Circle-2, Surat vs. Maruti Hardware, Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 148/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.148/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Maruti Hardware, Income Tax, 1-2, Thakor Baug, Circle – 2, Surat. New Civil Road, Near Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent C.O.No.63/Ahd/2013/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Maruti Hardware, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1-2, Thakor Baug, Income Tax, New Civil Road, Near Range– 2, Surat 395 001. Kapadia Health Club, Surat – 395 002. [Pan: Aaefm 1969 J] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rajesh Upadhyay – Itp िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 10.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Accoutant Member: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Ii, Surat(In Short

Section 142(3)Section 143(3)

…of admission in statement u/s.132(4)/, same has to be disbelieved, if subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is led contrary to such admission. (1) CIT vs. Kallashben Manharlal Chokshi (2009) 25 (i) ITCL (Guj) 129 (2) Paul Matews and Sons v.CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) (3) Pullangode Rubber Produce co Ltd. Vs.State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). (4) ITO v.Fakirchand L Gupta :: ITA No.4158/Ahd/2008 A.Y.2005-06 Maruti Hardware Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Surat/I.T.A. No.148/AHD/2013/SRT/A.Y.: 2009-10 Page 10 of 14 In view of above discussion, it is clear that A.O. has no evidence other than statements of part…

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Karan R. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 3652/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3652 & 4290/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. C. OmiFor Respondent: Shri Syed Nadeem
Section 133(6)Section 40A(2)(b)

…e appellant's representative has objected to the AO's action in making an addition by drawing inferences from the statements recorded on oath and that such statements have no evidentiary value. This is also held in the case of Paul Mathews Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101. The appellant's representative has also argued before me that the additions made by the AO are based on mere conjecture, surmise and suspicion. 14.8. 1 have heard the appellant's arguments. The vital questions which require examination are that:- a) Whether mere mention of expenses in Mac-book of Brother and found at Brother's place which are…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…urse of such actions. Further, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, 186 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above a…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…urse of such actions. Further, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, 186 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above a…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…urse of such actions. Further, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, 186 Skylark Build Skylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above a…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1809/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ve also examined the legal contention of the appellant that statement recorded on oath in proceedings u/s. 133 A cannot be used for making any addition. The appellant has relied upon the authority of S. Khader Khan So 79 DTR (SC) 184 and Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (KER.) for this legal preposition. The decision of S. Kadar Khan Sons (supra) of Hon’ble Supreme Court arise out from decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in decision of S. Kadar Khan reported as 214 CTR (MAD.) 589. It is a detailed judgment. In this case, the statement of partner was recorded during survey u/s. 133 A. However, it was retracted…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1808/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ve also examined the legal contention of the appellant that statement recorded on oath in proceedings u/s. 133 A cannot be used for making any addition. The appellant has relied upon the authority of S. Khader Khan So 79 DTR (SC) 184 and Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (KER.) for this legal preposition. The decision of S. Kadar Khan Sons (supra) of Hon’ble Supreme Court arise out from decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in decision of S. Kadar Khan reported as 214 CTR (MAD.) 589. It is a detailed judgment. In this case, the statement of partner was recorded during survey u/s. 133 A. However, it was retracted…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Padmini Vna Mechatronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Departmental Appeal for A

ITA 1807/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senpati, Sr.DR
Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ve also examined the legal contention of the appellant that statement recorded on oath in proceedings u/s. 133 A cannot be used for making any addition. The appellant has relied upon the authority of S. Khader Khan So 79 DTR (SC) 184 and Paul Mathews and Sons 263 ITR 101 (KER.) for this legal preposition. The decision of S. Kadar Khan Sons (supra) of Hon’ble Supreme Court arise out from decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in decision of S. Kadar Khan reported as 214 CTR (MAD.) 589. It is a detailed judgment. In this case, the statement of partner was recorded during survey u/s. 133 A. However, it was retracted…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…8, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), x. Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. vs UOI (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.), xi. Bismillah Trading Company Ltd. vs IO (2001) 248 ITR 292, 308 (Kerala), xii. Paul Mathews & Sons vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 113 (Kerala), xiii. CIT vs Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 500 (Mad.), xiv. Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj.) 2.18. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, we find that the assessee company credited Rs.83,94,764/- to the profit & loss acco…

ACIT, Cir-27(1), Kolkata, Purba Medinipur vs. Vivekananda Bera Sankarara, Kolkata

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

ITA 2357/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: None appearedFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 69

…e the said gifts on the ground that assessee did not mention about receipt of these gifts in the statement recorded during the course of survey. In support of the contention/submissions, he relied on the following case laws:- Paul Mathews & Sons Vs.CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) K. Mohon Vs. DCIT (1995) 215ITR 275, 285 Ajit Chintaman Karve Vs. ITO (2009) 311 ITR (At) 66(Pune) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384(Del) CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son (2012) 25 taxmann. Com 413(SC)/ 210 taxman 248(SC) CIT Vs. Khadar Kahn Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 7. The assessee further submitted that due to family situation and out…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ur charges of ₹ 7,42,559/-. Simply disclosure made, during the course of survey and that also without any details found by the department, is not admissible in view of the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) and Hon’ble Madras High court tin the case of CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Madras), wherein the unanimous view of the two High Courts that in the absence of any incriminating material the scope and ambit of the statement and disclosure made under section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value. Similar are the facts in…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7285/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…ce under the IT Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. 27 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 It is noteworthy that Special Leave Petition was filed in the case of S Khader Khan and sons (supra) against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case, before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, vide order dated 20.09.2012 (252 ITR 480) (Supreme Court), w…

Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7284/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 153ASection 254

…ce under the IT Act. On the other hand, whatever statement recorded On the other hand, whatever statement recorded under section 133A of the Act is not given an evidentiary value, vide a decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101. 27 Legal Heirs of Late Shreevallabh Damani ITA No.7282 to 7285/Mum/2010 It is noteworthy that Special Leave Petition was filed in the case of S Khader Khan and sons (supra) against the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid case, before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein, vide order dated 20.09.2012 (252 ITR 480) (Supreme Court), w…