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 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1358/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…khat with Shri Jugaji Babaji Thakor, the original land owner. 6.5 While arriving at the above conclusion, I have derived the judicial support from the cases relied upon by the appellant and also the cases relied on by me which are as under:- 1) Paul Matthews 263 ITR 101 (Ker) - Relied on by the appellant 2) S. Kahder Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mds) - Relied on by the appellant 3) S. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) - Relied on by the appellant 4) DCIT VS. Bansal Credits Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi (2016) 74Taxmann.com 224 (Delhi IΤΑΤ) 6.6 Considering the above judicial pronouncements relied on by the undersig…

Shri Vitthalbhai Madhavlal Patel, Gandhinagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1247/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…khat with Shri Jugaji Babaji Thakor, the original land owner. 6.5 While arriving at the above conclusion, I have derived the judicial support from the cases relied upon by the appellant and also the cases relied on by me which are as under:- 1) Paul Matthews 263 ITR 101 (Ker) - Relied on by the appellant 2) S. Kahder Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mds) - Relied on by the appellant 3) S. Khader Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) - Relied on by the appellant 4) DCIT VS. Bansal Credits Ltd. decided by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi (2016) 74Taxmann.com 224 (Delhi IΤΑΤ) 6.6 Considering the above judicial pronouncements relied on by the undersig…

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2907/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 Gorja Steel Processors, Vs DCIT, C-182, BS Road, Industrial Area, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. PAN: AAKFG3318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals…

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2906/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 Gorja Steel Processors, Vs DCIT, C-182, BS Road, Industrial Area, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. PAN: AAKFG3318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals…

Gorja Steel Processors, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed with consequential effects

ITA 2905/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.2905 To 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITAs No.2905 to 2907/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 Gorja Steel Processors, Vs DCIT, C-182, BS Road, Industrial Area, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201 002. PAN: AAKFG3318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals…

DCIT-Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai vs. Jsk Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, ITA Nos 3297 & 3298/Mum/2024 are dismissed

ITA 3298/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…ss corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)]. We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently and the capacity of the entire group as a whole has to be considered and not individually. We note that the appellant has filed the e…

Dy CIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Jsk Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, ITA Nos 3297 & 3298/Mum/2024 are dismissed

ITA 3297/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

…ss corroborated by other evidences. The case of the assessee finds support from the decisions namely CIT v. S. Khader Khan Sons [254 CTR 2289(SC)] confirming the decision in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [300 ITR 157] and Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT [263 ITR 101 (Ker)]. We also take note of the fact that these companies are part of the group companies of the appellant and therefore the creditworthiness as well as capacity of these companies cannot be examined independently and the capacity of the entire group as a whole has to be considered and not individually. We note that the appellant has filed the e…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MOR…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MOR…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MOR…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…any adverse opinion. Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 328 ITR 384 (Del) CIT v. Dhingra Metal Works ii) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. S Khader Khan Son reported in 352 ITR 480 iii) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT iv) 2 SOT 402 (Coch) Kurunnem Velil Financiers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT v) 394 ITR 383 (Raj) CIT vs. ARL Infratech Ltd. vi) 256 ITR 730 (Raj) CIT v. Mool Chand Salecha vii) 97 ITD 361 (Ahd) Ashok Manilal Thakkar v. ACIT 14 THAT EVEN OTHERWISE ONCE THE STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED NO FURTHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE OF SOME MOR…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

…n.com 413 (SC). 6.3.2 Moreover in a comparatively recent case of Pr. CIT, Central -2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101/129 Taxman 416 and of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan while considering distinction between statements under Sections 132(4) and 133A held as under: “40. The main plank of Mr. Manchanda's submission was that the disclosure made by Mr. Pawan Gadia in his statement under Section 133A was sufficient to be construed as incriminating material…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 377/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133A

…ISHA JAIN, KOTA 2.3.2 Moreover in a comparatively recent case of Pr. CIT, Central -2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 82 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi) Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101/129 Taxman 416 and of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan while considering distinction between statements under Sections 132(4) and 133A held as under: “40. The main plank of Mr. Manchanda's submission was that the disclosure made by Mr. Pawan Gadia in his statement under Section 133A was sufficient to be construed as incriminating material…

Sheetal Collection, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jalgaon

ITA 1074/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Sheetal Collection Shop No. 16, Fule Market, Jalgaon-425001 Pan: Acifs1530K. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1063185555(1) Dt. 22/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal-11 Pune [‘Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Is In Appeal. 2. Tersely Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In Retail Trading Business Of Readymade Garments. During The Year Under Consideration A Survey Action U/S 133A Of The Act On The Assessee Firm Was Carried Out & A Statement Of Its Partner Was Recorded. In Answering To Question Number 16 The Partner Declared/Admitted Certain

For Appellant: Mr V V Kawdia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ath or otherwise, because a Statement recorded on oath carries evidential value and automatically binds the assessee unlike the statement recorded otherwise than on oath. 5. In this context we note that, Hon’ble High Court ‘Paul Mathews & Sons Vs CIT’ [2003, 263 ITR 101 (Ker)] has settled a position of law by categorically holding that power to examine a person on oath is explicitly conferred u/s 132(4) of the Act only in search or seizure cases, and no such authorisation has been expressly provided in section 133A of the Act. The question of entitlement to record the statement on oath in the course of survey op…

M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ny admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition unless the same is supported by credible evidence on record as has been held in following case laws: (a) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (b) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker); (c) M/s Premsons 130 TTJ 159; (d) Vinod Solanki 233 ELT 157 (SC). The AO has referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Manoharlal Kasturchand 57 TTJ 639 to contend that the admission made by the assessee is best evidence on a point in issue though not conclusive unless successfully withdrawn. I have gone through the sa…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Atri Developers, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2855/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ny admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition unless the same is supported by credible evidence on record as has been held in following case laws: (a) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (b) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker); (c) M/s Premsons 130 TTJ 159; (d) Vinod Solanki 233 ELT 157 (SC). The AO has referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Manoharlal Kasturchand 57 TTJ 639 to contend that the admission made by the assessee is best evidence on a point in issue though not conclusive unless successfully withdrawn. I have gone through the sa…

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 7.3.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 7.3.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 7.3.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 7.3.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7.3.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 7.3.x CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7.4. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial pow…

Dy CIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 971/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erson on oath, so statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. 1.3.1.1. Decision of the Hon. Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 1.3.1.2. Decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Pulkngode Rubeer Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 1313 Decision of the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 1.3.1.4. Decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CTT vs. P. Balasubramanian" [2013] 354 ITR 116 Page 9…

M/S Arshiya Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide ITA No

ITA 7900/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 32(1), 308, Level 3, Ceejay Ground Floor, Aayakar House, F Block Shiv Bhavan, M.K. Road, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 020 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Cc-6(4) Vs. M/S Arshiya Ltd. R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, 308, Level 3, Ceejay Air India Building, House, F Block Shiv Nariman Point, Sagar Estate, Dr. A.B. Mumbai -400 021 Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent M/S Arshiya Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(4) 308, Level 3, Ceejay R. No. 1925, 19Th Floor, House, F Block Shiv Sagar Air India Building, Estate, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Mumbai -400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaci2679A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ajay ChandraFor Respondent: Piyush Chhajed
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…erson on oath, so statement recorded under section 133A has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot be made basis of addition. 1.3.1.1. Decision of the Hon. Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons vs. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101 1.3.1.2. Decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Pulkngode Rubeer Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 1313 Decision of the Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 1.3.1.4. Decision of the Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CTT vs. P. Balasubramanian" [2013] 354 ITR 116 P a g…

Sh. Lachhman Dass Bansal, Barnala vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 34/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

…Tax Act it is not given any evidentiary value obviously for the reason that the officer is not authorised to administer oath and to take any sworn statement which alone 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 Vs. G.K.Senniappan, [2006] 284 ITR220(Mad)]; (iv) The material or information found i…