How many judgments cite Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT (168 ITR 375), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 131, Section 147, Section 148, Section 68.

Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

168 ITR 375High Court1987#2740 most cited

What is Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act during a search operation carries significant evidentiary value, and its subsequent retraction is only valid if supported by cogent reasons and evidence of coercion or falsehood.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT · Section 132(4) · retraction of statement · statement during search · evidentiary value of statement · coercion · validity of retracted statement · assessment procedure · 168 ITR 375 · 35 Taxmann.com 153

Also reported as

35 Taxmann.com 153

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 131 Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement statement under section 132(4)retracted statement section 158bb mli on-money section 132(4a)block period section 131(1a)dumb documents section 132(4)section 69b

Judgments citing Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 227/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT v Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Pun). & Har), Bachittar Singh v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj & Har), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidav…

Surekha Tukaram Dudhe, Panvel vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Panvel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 589/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.589/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Surekha Tukaram Dudhe, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Shop No.13, Dudhe Vitevari, Plot No.1, Sector- 3A, Karanjade, New Panvel Navi Mumbai- 410206. Pan : Aiqpd9270M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.05.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Builder. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Was Filed On 29.10.2015

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 43CSection 68

…T(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal by holding that when the additions were made based on the consent of the appellant, no appeal lies placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bombay) and the decision of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Deep 3 Kukreti vs. CIT, 53 taxmann.com 161 (Uttarakhand) without delving into the merits of the additions. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal…

Chetan Raghunath Lavania, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 73/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.73/Nag/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chetan Raghunath Lavania, The Income Tax Officer, House No.18, Poonam Vihar, Vs Ward-1(3), Nagpur Swawlambi Nagar, Indraprasth Layout, Nagpur – 440022. Pan Aampl 0196 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe- Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.10.2014 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2011 Passed By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Nagpur. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assesssment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Bad In Law & On Facts & The Learned Cit Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Same.

Section 143(3)

…ay the taxes one cannot say that assessee was aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, therefore, in principle the Appeal was not maintainable under section 246A of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra & Company Vs. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 375 (Bom) has held as under : “9. The assessee had been asked by the Income-tax Officer to explain the discrepancy of 360 bags in a particular account in its books of account. In response, its partner appeared before the Income-tax Officer and expressed in writing the assessee's "inability to reconcile the discrepancies" and he asked that "the amount…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune vs. M/S Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Trust), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…lsion by filing a complaint to higher officials. This position was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352 (P&H), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT, 328 ITR 400 (P&H), Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT, 168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT, 248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya, 332 ITR 537 (Kerala), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak, 350 ITR 71 (Kerala). 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16.04.2014 notarized on 19.04.2014, we find that all these affidavits are stereo…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Anantapur vs. Renuka Gated Community, Anantapur

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 737/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2013-14 Acit, Vs. M/S. Renuka Gated Circle-1, Community, Anantapur. Anantapur. Pan: Aanfr 2245 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar, DR

Section 143(3)

…made by the partner. 3. Whether Ld. CIT(A) was right in admitting appeal against agreed addition as the assessee has failed to prove coercion or malafide. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decisions on this issue: a) Rameshchandr & Co vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. b) Ramanlal Kamdas vs. CIT (Mad.) 108 ITR 73. c) Mahesh B. Shah vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130. d) Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT (All) 123 ITR 181. 4. Any other additional ground that may be urged at the time of appeal.” 3. None appeared before us to represent the case of the assessee. However, on examining the record, We find that the Revenue’s app…

Metallica Tubes & Pipes Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4604/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Metallica Tubes & Pipes Pvt. The Income Tax Officer- Ltd., Ward 10(2)(4) 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400057 Pan: Aafcm6609K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Ito – 10(2)(4), M/S Metallica Tubes & Pipes R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 Pan: Aafcm6609K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar (DR)

Section 115JSection 143Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Metallica Tubes & Pipes Pvt. The Income Tax Officer- Ltd., Ward 10(2)(4) 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (E), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400057 PAN: AAFCM6609K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The ITO – 10(2)(4), M/s Metallica Tubes & Pipes R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Road, 106, Kanchanban, Dixit Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 PAN: AAFCM6609K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue…

DCIT, Rourkela vs. Shri Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia, Sundergarh

In the result, appeal of the department is allowed and that of the

ITA 63/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-2012 DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Vs. Shri Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia, DD-2, Civil Township, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No.AASPA 2953 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Shri Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia, Vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela DD-2, Civil Township, Rourkela. PAN/GIR No.AASPA 2953 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 26 /…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Shreeji Sulz Pvt. Ltd

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

ITA 669/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…tement to show that there is additional income. The Appellant has also discharged its burden to curtail the impugned addition by submitting the necessary documents and evidences. 8 ITA 507 & 669/JP/2016_ Shreeji Sulz P Ltd. Vs ACIT vi. Rameshchandra and Co. (168 ITR 375 - BOM): In this case, the assessee having declared suppression of sales, later on accepted it also in his statement. In our case, there is no such confirmation and hence, the said case is not applicable on us. vii. Rakesh Mahajan (14 CTR 218 — P&H): This decision is cited out of context as here the statement was made in contemplation of death. I…

Shreejesulz Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ajmer

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

ITA 507/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prakhul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

Smt. Jagjit Kaur Chawla, Mohali vs. DCIT, Mohali

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

ITA 189/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

Section 250(6)Section 36

…ITR 239 (P&H) Wherein it was held that the assessee cannot turn around after he has agreed to some additions. By agreeing to the addition, the assessee precludes the Assessing Officer for making any further investigation. (6) Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375. It said, in answer, that it could not be held as a matter of. law that the remedy of appeal under the Act could not be availed of by the assessee without having filed a rectification application before the Income-tax Officer in a case where the order of the Income-tax Officer showed that the assessee had agreed to the addition to the income. The…

Maruti Metal Industries, Bhavnagar vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2457/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2010-11 Maruti Metal Industries, The Joint CIT, A-208-209, Leela Efcee, Range-1, Waghawadi Road, Vs Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364002 (Respondent) PAN: AAIFM1017H (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Date of hearing : 20-12-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-03-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, arises from order of the CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated…

Shri Jatin M. Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 500/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.500/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shri Jatin M. Shah The Income Tax Officer Shree Krishna Cargo Ward-5(3)(4) Vs. M-7, Shree Ghatakaran Mahavir Market Narayan Chamers New Dloth Market,Ahmedabad-380002 Ashram Road,Ahmedabad [PAN No.APZPS 2196 H ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.F. Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Alok Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 02/07/2018 Date of Pronouncement 17/09/2018 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Th…

Franco -Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)

…he assessee at the time of survey I search action is binding on it and any retraction made by him has no meaning at all. The various judicial decisions in this regard areas follows 1 Hiralal Maganlal & Co V/s DOT 96 lTD 113 MUM. 2 Rameshchandra & Co V/s CIT 168 ITR 375 (BOM) 3. Hotel Kiran v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master V/S Joint Commissioner of Income- tax 83 ITD 102 It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangodo Rubber Produce co Ltd. V/s State of Kerala 1792 CTYR (SC) 253 has held that, an admission is an extremely important piece o…

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 226/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)

M/S.Dedhia Housing Corporation, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1274/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Dedhia Housing Corporation The Dcit Circle 22(1), Plot No.231/6, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Manju Appt., R B Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077. Pan Aaafd2512Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr P DanielFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 5

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/s Dedhia Housing Corporation The DCIT Circle 22(1), Plot No.231/6, 1st Floor, Mumbai Vs. Manju Appt., R B Mehta Marg, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077. PAN AAAFD2512Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr P Daniel Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari Date of Hearing :16.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order date…

Superna R. Motwane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 8864/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8864/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02) Mrs. Superna R. Motwane, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnyanghar, 14 Th Road, Income Tax, V. Khar (West), Circle – 19(1), Mumbai -400 052. 3 Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk5356 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

…assessee has also vide letter dated 22nd October, 2003 withdrawn the claim of expense and agreed to the addition in the first round of litigation. The A.O. referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court reported in Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 375(Bom.HC) , and observed that the assessee cannot be an aggrieved party, when she herself has agreed to the additions. During the set aside proceedings no further details were filed by the assessee to show that the withdrawal of consultancy fees paid to Mr. Gaurav Motwane was erroneous. The assessee filed only a letter from Mr. Gaurav Motwane stati…

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)

…assessee at the time of survey / search action is binding on him and any retraction made by him has no meaning at all. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal and Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum); Ramesh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by the assessee before him. “(i) The survey u/s 133A…

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)

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2141/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha (DR)

Section 115WSection 254(1)

…hen he should have filed a revised return 2196,2141-Aditya Birla failing which,the assessee should be precluded from raising such grounds of appeal. In support of her submissions, the ld. DR relied upon the following orders: 1. 35 Taxman 153 (Bombay)/[1987] 168 ITR 375 (Bombay) 2. 65 ITR 261 (Bombay) 7. On the contrary, the ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, G Bench, Mumbai in ITA Nos. 4910, 4911 and 5632/Mum/2011 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. ACI T. On the careful perusal of judgments relied upon by the Id. OR as well as the ld. AR, we are of view that the para-materia contained in the judgemen…