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

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…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.) 2.8. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal and analyzed, the ld. Assessing Officer has not gone into the 13 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Hea…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central -2 vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/308/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…d under Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act. 41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (supra) and observed that the word „may‟ occurring in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act “clarifies beyond doubt that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey is not a conclusive piece of evidence by itself.” Incidentally, the decision of the Madras High C…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/310/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…d under Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act. 41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (supra) and observed that the word „may‟ occurring in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act “clarifies beyond doubt that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey is not a conclusive piece of evidence by itself.” Incidentally, the decision of the Madras High C…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Fersn N Petals

ITA/307/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…d under Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act. 41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and of the Madras High Court in CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (supra) and observed that the word „may‟ occurring in Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act “clarifies beyond doubt that the material collected and the statement recorded during the survey is not a conclusive piece of evidence by itself.” Incidentally, the decision of the Madras High C…

Dr. Subrata Kundu, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1815/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11

Section 131Section 133ASection 144Section 145(3)Section 44A

…t addition cannot be made. Similarly, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Mahesh Ohri (supra) has also considered this aspect and after putting reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT reported in (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) has held that section 133A empowers the authority to record the statement of any person, which may be useful for, or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. This section only enables the authority to record any statement of any person, which may be useful, but does not authorize for taking any sworn statement. On the other hand, such po…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…riel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) i) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) j) CIT V. D.P. Karai: 266 ITR 113 (Guj.) k) N.N Aggarwal v. CIT: 189 ITR 769 (All.) l) Bhartia Industries Ltd. v. CIT: 353 ITR 486 (Cal.) m) Paul Mathew & Sons V. CIT: 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) n) CIT V. Mepco Industries Limited: 294 ITR 121 (Mad.) o) Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. CIT: ITA No. 2813/Del/2016 dated 12.01.2017 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to various pages of the paper book submitted that the assessee had at the time of filing of return of income as well as during the course of orig…

Ratan Taxtiles P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 527/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

…the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and also the judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Kerala in the cases of CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works and Paul Mathews and sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker). He submitted that the tax was deposited under protest. The Assessing Officer presumed payment of tax on the surrendered amount during the course of survey as if the assessee had accepted the surrendered amount as correct. He ITA 527 & 595/JP/2016 with Ors. 5 appeals_ 8 M/s Ratan Textiles P Ltd. Vs DCIT contended that the Assessing Offic…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…(2012) 25 Taxmann 413 (SC) it has been held that statement recorded u/s.133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Similar is the proposition in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxmann 416(Kerala). 5.8 During the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee has filed following evidences - a. Copy of invoices of the purchases from the above parties h. Bank Statement highlighting payment made by account payee cheque c. Ledger copies of accounts of parties d. Bank Certificate of clearance of cheques issued to the parties e.…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…(2012) 25 Taxmann 413 (SC) it has been held that statement recorded u/s.133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. Similar is the proposition in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT (2003) 129 Taxmann 416(Kerala). 5.8 During the course of assessment proceedings itself assessee has filed following evidences - a. Copy of invoices of the purchases from the above parties h. Bank Statement highlighting payment made by account payee cheque c. Ledger copies of accounts of parties d. Bank Certificate of clearance of cheques issued to the parties e.…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…nt submits that in any case, the statement recorded it the course of survey proceedings does 11 M/s. Heeralal Meghraj Doshi not have any evidentiary value. In this regard, the appellant relies upon the following decisions- Paul Mathew & Sons v. CIT [2003[ 263 ITR 101 (Ker) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) [SLP filed by the Department dismissed -210 Taxman 248/254 CTR 228 (SC) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works 328 ITR 384 (Del) Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO [2008] 22 SOT 429 (Mum) DClT v. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mum) (w) The appellant further submits in this regard that the CBDT nas issued ins…

Smt. Dayawanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

…g such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act.” This court had in Commissioner of Income Tax v Dhingra construction 328 (ITR) 384 (Del)and the Kerala High Court, in Paul Mathews v Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101, noted the difference in statutory phraseology between Section 132 (4) on the one hand, as contradistinguished with Section 133A (3) (ii). Whilst the former enables- even empowers the assessing officer to record statement on oath and provides for evidentiary value to such statement, the latter is silent. These two judgments held that stateme…

Smt. Daya Wanti Through Smt. Sunita Gupta (Legal Heir) vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-357/2015HC Delhi27 Oct 2016
Section 139(1)Section 145Section 153A

…g such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act.” This court had in Commissioner of Income Tax v Dhingra construction 328 (ITR) 384 (Del)and the Kerala High Court, in Paul Mathews v Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 101, noted the difference in statutory phraseology between Section 132 (4) on the one hand, as contradistinguished with Section 133A (3) (ii). Whilst the former enables- even empowers the assessing officer to record statement on oath and provides for evidentiary value to such statement, the latter is silent. These two judgments held that stateme…

M/S. Ashok & Co., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-312/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 133A

…identiary value in assessment, as the assessee had retraced these statements. The case laws relied upon are as follows: i) CIT V Dr. N. Thippa Setty 525 ITR 322 (Karn) ii) CIT V M/s. Dhingra Metal Works 2010 TIOL 693 HC Del-IT iii) Paul Mathews & Sons V CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iv) Kader Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mad) v) S Arjun Singh V CWT 1989 175 ITR 91 vi) Asst. CIT V Monorajyam 1996 54 TTJ 97 (Coch) vii) Ashok Manilal Thakkar V A. CIT 2005 97 ITD 361(Ahd) 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that vide instruction no. F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated March 10, 2003; the Board has pointed the instances where the assess…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sunilkumar O Kochhar, Mumbai

ITA 5360/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…7.1 Be it stated that the decisions relied on by the AO do not relate to the import of statement recorded under section 133A of the Act. 7.2 In the present case statement has been recorded under section 133A of the Act. In Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 108 (Ker.), it has been held that section 133A(3)(iii) enables the authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Income-tax Act. Section 133A, however, enables the Income-tax authority only to record any statement of any person which may be useful, but does not authorize taking…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Renu S. Kochar, Mumbai

ITA 5261/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…7.1 Be it stated that the decisions relied on by the AO do not relate to the import of statement recorded under section 133A of the Act. 7.2 In the present case statement has been recorded under section 133A of the Act. In Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101, 108 (Ker.), it has been held that section 133A(3)(iii) enables the authority to record the statement of any person which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Income-tax Act. Section 133A, however, enables the Income-tax authority only to record any statement of any person which may be useful, but does not authorize taking…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4350/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…connection, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com…

Shine Star Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4349/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…connection, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com…

Sunshine Import & Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir (42), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part

ITA 4348/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4347 & 4348/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Sunshine Import & Exports Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 1023 K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : & आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4349 & 4350/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2009-10) Shine Star Impex Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Central Circle (42), बिाम/ 28/3, Shree Ramniwas, 1St Bhatwadi, Mumbai Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aalcs 3998 R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written Submission प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke सुनवाई की तायीख / : 19.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : .9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Written submissionFor Respondent: Shri Uday Bhaskar Jakke
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

…connection, reliance can be placed on the following judicial pronouncements:  ACIT Vs Dr. J. Mohan ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 575 to 582/ (Mds)/ 2011  ACIT Vs. Smt. M. Maheswari, ITAT Chennai ITA Nos. 583 to 589/(Mds)/2011  Paul Matheuis and Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker.)  CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (300 ITR 157)(Mad)  Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT (279 ITR(AT)143) (Ahmedabad) 7. In support of the preposition that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath, reliance can be placed on the following decisions: (A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2009-10) • CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2012 25 taxmann.com…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT CC 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCP7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ ITA Nos. 194 to 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 to 2011-2012) Vs. ACIT, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free CC…

Mantor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit Cc 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. & आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita Nos. 194 To 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 To 2011-2012) Vs. Acit, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Cc -22 Press Journal Rd. Mumbai – 4000020 Nariman Pt. Mumbai- 400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P. Singh, Cit Dr ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Mr. N. R. Suresh, Ar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/08/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Mumbai, For The A.Y.2010-2011 & The Appeals Filed By Assessee For Assessment Years 2008-2009 To 2011-2012, In The Matter Order Passed U/S 143(3)/143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 3

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA Nos.7408/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ACIT CC 3(3) Vs. Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free Press Mumbai – 4000020 Journal Rd. Nariman Pt. Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACCP7995G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND आमकय अऩीर सं./ ITA Nos. 194 to 196/M/2015 & 7512/M/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-2009 to 2011-2012) Vs. ACIT, Mentor Capital Ltd. 713 Raheja Centre Free CC…