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 366,005 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

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

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 7283/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

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 7282/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2018AY 2002-03

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…

Sh. Didar Singh S/O Sh. Prem Singh, Kapurthala vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kapurthala

In the result, the assessee succeeds

ITA 542/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.542(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Harminder Syal (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra (Ld. DR)
Section 250(6)Section 44ASection 68

…he case of Gajjam Chinna Yellappa and Ors. vs. ITO [2015] 370 ITR 671 (AP) held that “a retracted statement cannot constitute the sole basis of fastened liability of the assessee" . 7.3 Further, Kerala High in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker) held that statement recorded 9 Sh. Didar Singh, Kapurthala vs. DCIT under Section 133A of the IT Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn in statement. para no. 11: The provision also enables the IT authority to impound and retain in his cu…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…ial Company Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), 22 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. 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.) 5.3. 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 c…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…IT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 14 Gautam Tube Corporation 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.) 2.7. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeals and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…IT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 14 Gautam Tube Corporation 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.) 2.7. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeals and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer while framing the assessment made no discussion with the…

Mathura Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…there was no corroboration by the AO either with reference to the books of accounts or other evidences gathered either during survey or during the assessment proceedings as has been held in a series of decisions namely; 1. Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) 2. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) 3. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) The Ld. A.R. submitted that there was complete lack of enquiry on the part of AO as the assessee furnished all the required information/material as desired by the AO during the course of assessments proceedings and secondly additi…

ACIT, Cir-2, Burdwan vs. M/S Ram Chandra Das & Son Jwellers Pvt. Ltd., Burdwan

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

ITA 446/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.446/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit, Circle-2, Burdwan Vs. M/S Ram Chandra Das & Son Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Court Bara Bazar, Bc Road, Burdwan, Compound, Burdwan – 713101. Dist-Burdwan – 713104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 6669 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit(Dr) Respondent By :Shri Saikat Maulik सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Saikat Maulik
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.446/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) ACIT, Circle-2, Burdwan Vs. M/s Ram Chandra Das & Son Jewelers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Court Bara Bazar, BC Road, Burdwan, Compound, Burdwan – 713101. Dist-Burdwan – 713104. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCR 6669 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT(DR) Respondent by :Shri Saikat Maulik सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/01/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 23/03/2018 आदेश /…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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.) 2.10. 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/enquiry, d…

DCIT Cir 3, Thane vs. Sai Anand Constrction, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1834/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Sai Anand Construction, Tax, Shop No.22-27, Sai Tirth, Circle-3, Room No.02, Vs. Siddarth Nagar, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Kopri Colony, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane (E)- 400 603 Thane (W)-400 604 Pan: Aakfm 2891B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2018

For Appellant: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s. Sai Anand Construction, Tax, Shop No.22-27, Sai Tirth, Circle-3, Room No.02, Vs. Siddarth Nagar, 6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Kopri Colony, B-Wing, Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane (E)- 400 603 Thane (W)-400 604 PAN: AAKFM 2891B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Shashi Tulsiyan, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 21.03.2018 O R D E R…

Shri Subhash Virchand Patel, Visnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Patan Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 118/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…rovisional profit and loss account and the authorities below have not even doubted correctness of the books of accounts. The statement given by the assessee under section 133A does not even bind the assessee. In the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala)], it was clearly held that statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value, and no judicial precedent to the contrary has been cited before us. In any case, the factual statement about the provisional profit figure cannot be reason enough to disregard a different profit figure as per final accounts – particularly in the li…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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.) 2.7. 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 respec…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Jhandewalas Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, ground no

ITA 326/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Shalendra Sharma (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133A

…ome-tax Act is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorized to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which along has evidentiary value as contemplated under law, vide Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (iii) The expression “such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer” contained in section 158BB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would include the materials gathered during the survey operation under section 133A, vide CIT v. G.K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad.); “ (iv) The material or information foun…

Paliwal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 82 & 83/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 13-14. cuke Paliwal Jewellers, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. B-360, Himmat Nagar, Ward 6(3), Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAEFP 7182 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Advocate) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reven…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed as…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed as…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.) 2.9. In the light of the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, now we shall analyze the facts of the case of Shri Devang Gandhi (ITA No.3747/Mum/2016). It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer framed as…

Texraj Reality Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3520/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3520/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendrakumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…by other director which is available on the record. During the course of hearing, we have been appraised as to how statement recorded under section 133A has to be appreciated. Decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker) was brought to our notice. Similarly, proposition laid down in this decision was approved by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khadar Khan & Sons, 25 taxmann.com 413 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court which has referred judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court. In both these cases, it…

Devkant Synthetics (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3153/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri B Pruseth
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 263

…nation of facts was totally wrong. In support its contention, the ld. AR relied upon the series of case laws which are as under : a) Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 Bom b) S S Muddanna V/s State of Karnataka reported 89 STC 90 c) Paul Mathews and Sons V/s CIT 263 ITR 101. The ld. AR submitted that while passing the assessment order the AO is bound to follow the decision of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case passed in the earlier years as has been decided in the case of Seimens India Ltd reported in 156 ITR 11(Bom). 6. The ld.DR relied on the decision of ld. PCIT and also the decision rendered in the case of Gard…

Jai Mahalaxmi Ispat (I) P. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(4), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4265/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 4265/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2010-11) M/s. Jai Mahalaxmi Ispat ITO Ward 1(4) (I) Pvt. Limited Vs. Room 11, B Wing Shop No. 2, Sachinam Ashar I.T. Park CHS , Majiwada Road No. 16-Z Thane West-400 601. Wagle Indl. Estate PAN : AABCJ2965M Thane-400 604. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing 01.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement 01.11.2017 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated…