How many judgments cite Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT?

266 judgments on BharatTax cite Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT (263 ITR 101), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 147.

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 366,339 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 133A Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 143(2)Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)section 158bb survey under section 133a retracted statement statement under section 132(4)disallowance of interest expenditure section 133a loose papers section 132(4)section 132(4a)section 133 section 292c

Judgments citing Paul Mathews & Sons. v. CIT

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…, the statement on oath recorded in course of the search action u/s 132(4) has been held to be of evidentiary value by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews (263 ITR 101) as against statement on oath recorded u/s 133A. 5.9 In view of the aforesaid judicial decisions, the statement on oath recorded of Shri Anil Agarwal wherein he admitted that the scrips of FFSL etc are being manipulated and also explained his role in the LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit providers, who were the clients of M/s. Comfort…

M/S. Mandviwala Developers, Surat vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1192/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Mandviwala Developers, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Survey No.405-406, Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat Opp. Din Dayal Ashram, Sachin Magdalla Road, Surat (Gujarat). Pan : Aaqfm7563C Appellant Respondednt

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 254(1)

…ied upon the following decisions: Gujarat High Court in case of Shardaben K Modi in Tax Appeal 1 15 Assessment Year.2012-13 M/s. Mandviwala Developers No. 123 of 2013 dated 30.04.2013 Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs 2 CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala), 3 Supreme Court in CIT Vs S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 SC, 4 Madras High Court CIT Vs S. Khader Khan Son (2008)300 ITR 157 (Madras) Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Golden Finance[2013] 40 5 taxmann.com 329 (Gujarat) 6 Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT Vs Digambar Kumar Jain (HUF)(2012) 83 CCH 0236 MPHC Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Dh…

The ITO, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

…. It is a just an information for corroboration purpose. A recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kader Khan & Sons, 352 ITR 480 (SC) as well as the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court reported in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 101 are worth to refer for the proposition that if the officer is not authorized to record the statement on oath, the statement taken during the course of survey, has no evidentiary value as contemplated under law. Therefore, on the strength of this statement, the ld.AO cannot deny the deduction to the assessee. This aspect has also been gone through…

Dishman Infrastructure Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and its cross objections are dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2593/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 801ASection 80I

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

…nd unjustified and are academic in nature. No cognizance therefore can be attached on such statements. The same therefore deserves to be ignored. In this regard reliance is placed on CIT vs S. Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (SC) and Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). The said position was further clarified by CBDT vide Circular no. 10 dated 2003, which clearly stated that focus and concentration should be on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Departments rather than on obtaining confession.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

M/S.Kottakkal Wood Complex, Kottakkal vs. The ITO, Tirur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the Stay Petitions

ITA 593/COCH/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2020AY 2002-03

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the assessments are illegal. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court and the Madras High Court in Paul Mathews and Sons v. Commissioner of Income Tax (263 ITR 101) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008)_ 300 ITR 157 (Mad) respectively and the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) where the judgment of the Madras High Court was confirmed. On the other hand, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Revenue contended tha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

…iew of the above discussion, we find force in the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs. 2 crores." Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker). In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon‟ble High Court that as the statement elicited during the course of the survey operations is not recorded on oath, therefore, the same has no evidentiary value. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC), while upholdi…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…relied following Judgments: 1. CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel (2006) 8 (J) ITCL 260 (AllHe) : (2005) 278 JTR 454 (All) : (2006) 152 Taxman 290 (All), 2. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC) 3. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003J 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) Hon'ble Kerala High Court 4. Ashok Hanilal Thakkar vs. ACIT-279 ITR 143 (I.T.A.T.-AHM) 5. Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (20 43 SOT 651 (Trib. Mum.) 6. CIT vs. Gulmohar Traders 2016 28 ITJ 382 (Trib-Indore). 10. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the following finding of Ld. CIT(A): “Though t…

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Parida and Jitendra NaharFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra and Shri S.B. Prasad

Section 133A

…videntiary value. To support his contentions, ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Del) (ii) ITO Vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chhattisgarh) (iii) Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7. Mrs. Amrita Mishra representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. DR has filed following written submissions to support her contentions: “III. The sum total of the grounds of appeal is whether land sold by the assessee is to be assessed as income from business…

Shri Narendra Kumar Simhal, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1 (2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Narendra Kumar Simhal (Huf) Ito-1(2) बनाम/ Prop:- M/S Alankar Jewellers, Bhopal Vs. 30, Roshanpura, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Aachn2629G Appellant By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Advs Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Bhopal, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 27.03.2018 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 25.02.2016 By Ito- 1(2), Bhopal.

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e fact from 'Laxmi Dia jewel Pvt Ltd. 2. The working of Jawahart Account as per assessee is on PB 47. 3. Addition based on Surrender during Survey is unjustified:- The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003J 181 CTR (Ker.) 207 : [2003J 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) has held that the statement recorded under s. 133A has no evidentiary value. The same view has been reiterated recently by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008J 214 CTR (Mad.) 5~9 : [2008J 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) holding that s. 133A does not empower any IT authority to examine any person on oath and hen…

Navkar Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 2686/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)

…1 M/s Navkar Realtors Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / I.T.A. No.2683/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / I.T.A. No.2686/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) M/s. Navkar Realtors DCIT-19(3) C-1/12, Hari Om Apartments Piramal Chamber बनाम/ Behind M/s. Vijay Sales Lalbaug Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (W) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 092. "थायी…

M/S. Shiv Pujan Developers, Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2012-13 M/S.Shiv Pujan Develpers Ito, Ward-3 Mehsana. C/O. Jigneshkuamr Purushottambhai Vs. Patel, Abf-12, First Floor, Shivam Plaza Borisana Three Road Opp: Borisana Petrol Pump Kalol (N.G.)-382 721. Pan : Abtfs 2833 H

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)

…ttressing his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son, 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC). He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 101. He placed on record copy of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Khader khan (supra) reported in 300 ITR 157. With regard to the recovery of diary, he alleged that an affidavit was filed by the assessee retracting the statement given at the time of survey and also alleged that this diary was created by the Revenue authorities. The…

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(2)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 3327/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…l sanctity in the eyes of law and cannot be the basis for drawing any adverse inference against the assessee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: i. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son : 210 Taxman 248 (SC) ii. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT : 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iii. CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works : 328 ITR 384 (Del) iv. CIT vs. Subhash Chand : ITA No. 875/2010 (Del) v. CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal : 379 ITR 367 (Del) vi. ITO vs. Vijay Kumar Kesar : 327 ITR 497 (Chattisgarh) vii. TDI Marketing (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT : (2009) 28 SOT 215 (Del) viii. Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT : 279 ITR 143 (AT)(Ahd) ix. Meeta…

M/S. Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 1946/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Lg Electronics Inc., Korea (Lgek), Noida vs. DCIT, Circle- Noida, International Taxation, Noida

In the result all the 9 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed with above direction for statistical purposes

ITA 6916/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.5783/Mum/2017 AY.2013-14 DCIT, CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.5784/Mum/2017 AY. 2013-14 DCIT,CC-6(3) Vs. M/s Marathan Realty Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021 PAN – AAFCM9819F (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner of Incom…

Sanjay Dangi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22 & 30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6908/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Sanjay Dangi, Deputy Commissioner Of 61, 6Th Floor, Twinstar Venus Co., Income Tax, Vs. Op.Hsg.Soc. Ltd., Cuffee Parade, Central Circle-22 & 30, Colaba, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Ahspd6986H]

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Suresh, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…3 (Supreme Court); 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Madras); 4. Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy Vs. P. Balasubramanian (2013) 354 ITR 116 (Madras); 5. Paul Mathew & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 129 Taxmann 416 (Kerala); 6. Pullangode Rubber Products Co Limited Vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18; 7. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samar Kumar Sen (Kolkatta Tribunal) (ITA No.952/Kol/2013) Jul 2016; 8. P R Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore – Supreme Court of India 157 Taxmann 325; 9. M Narayanan & Bros Vs. Assistant Comm…

Tridevh Construction Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 29 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground of

ITA 3064/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatridevh Construction Company, Acit-29(3) 2Nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. Lbs Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. Pan: Aadft2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Chothani With Shri Lajari Oswal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tridevh Construction Company, ACIT-29(3) 2nd Floor, C-10, Pratyashakar Office No.32, Nirmal Galaxy, Vs. LBS Road, Mulund West, Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400080. Mumbai. PAN: AADFT2138H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nimesh Chothani with Shri Lajari Oswal (AR) Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 10.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by ass…

DCIT - 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4984/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Itas No. 4984/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2014-15) The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-9(2)(1), 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacb2782M प्रत्याक्षेप सM./ Co No. 351/Mum/2018 (Arising In Ita No. 4984/Mum/2017 For Ay 2014-15) M/S. Best Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 2, Ground Floor, Ram Niwas, Income Tax-9(2)(1), Paranjpe ‘B’ Scheme, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Road No.3, Ville Parle (E), Andheri, Mumbai-57 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Abi Rama Karthikeyan, DRFor Respondent: Shri B.v. Jhaveri, AR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…CIT V/s S. Khader Khan[300 ITR 157] after considering 12 C.O.No. 351/Mum/2018 the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. V/s State of Kerala[91 ITR 18] &Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul Matthews and Sons V/s CIT [263 ITR 101] culled out following principle as to statement made during survey operations u/s 133A: - From the foregoing discussion, the following principles can be culled out: (i) An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person who made the admission to show that it is incor…