Shahrukh Khan v. DCIT

13 SOT 61Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#6889 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

94 ITD 79

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 92C(2)Section 92CA(1)Section 92CA(3)

Issues it is cited on

economic adjustmentprofit split methodcomparable uncontrolled price methodtransfer pricing ordersection 92ca(1)transactional net margin methodcup methodadmission of additional evidencecomparable companiesmost appropriate methodsection 92ca(3)sundry creditors

Judgments citing Shahrukh Khan v. DCIT

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

…or by the CIT(A) from TPO as per sub- rule (3) of Rule 46A, the CIT(A) was duty bound to admit the evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a. - Dhanna Ram Garg vs ITO: [2012] 49 SOT 73 (Delhi) b. - Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT: [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) d. The CIT(A) has further erred in not following the order dated November 18, 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 (refer pages14 to 34 of the compilation of case laws). The Appellant, in those years, had filed an additional ground pertaining to 50:50 revenue split model for the first t…

M/S GEODIS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,GURGAON vs. DCIT,, NEW DELHI

ITA 3195/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

…or by the CIT(A) from TPO as per sub- rule (3) of Rule 46A, the CIT(A) was duty bound to admit the evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a. - Dhanna Ram Garg vs ITO: [2012] 49 SOT 73 (Delhi) b. - Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT: [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) d. The CIT(A) has further erred in not following the order dated November 18, 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 (refer pages14 to 34 of the compilation of case laws). The Appellant, in those years, had filed an additional ground pertaining to 50:50 revenue split model for the first t…

DR. BHIM RAO AMBEDKAR MAHASANG HARYANA,FARIDABAD vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH/FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3196/DEL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarita No. 3195/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ita No. 3196/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Geodis Overseas Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Building No.5,Tower B, Income Tax, 10Th Floor, Dlf Cyber City, Company Circle- Ii(1), Phase Iii, Gurgaon Chennai-34 Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaacc6168L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 92C

…or by the CIT(A) from TPO as per sub- rule (3) of Rule 46A, the CIT(A) was duty bound to admit the evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: a. - Dhanna Ram Garg vs ITO: [2012] 49 SOT 73 (Delhi) b. - Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT: [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) d. The CIT(A) has further erred in not following the order dated November 18, 2014 passed by this Hon'ble Bench of the Tribunal for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 (refer pages14 to 34 of the compilation of case laws). The Appellant, in those years, had filed an additional ground pertaining to 50:50 revenue split model for the first t…

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…iew that it is a fit case for admission of additional evidence. Hence, all the documents submitted by the appellant are admitted for deciding this appeal on merit and in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on following case laws: Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT 13 SOT 61 (Mum) ITO vs Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD I(TM)(Patna) Rachhpal Singh vs ITO 94 ITD 79 (Asr) Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. us Inspecting Asstt. CIT 26 ITD 236(Del) CIT vs K Ravindranathan Nair 265 ITR 217(Ker) Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT 231 ITR (Bom) Manish Buildwell (Delhi High Court; order dated 20.11.2011 8.10 It is observed that all these amounts pertain to…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…sessee. The AO has wrongly compared that onus of the assessee is the same as required in respect of cash credit entries. The Hon'ble Jodhpur Tribunal had the occasion to consider a case in respect of similar type of share transaction. The decision reported in 13 SOT 61 in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Kusum Lata wherein the Hon'ble Bench held that the share transaction was not bogus. The Hon'ble Bench confirmed the order of CIT (A) who held that assessee has filed the requisite evidence to establish the genuineness of share transaction and merely because share broker could not report the transaction to Stock Exchange,…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…sessee. The AO has wrongly compared that onus of the assessee is the same as required in respect of cash credit entries. The Hon'ble Jodhpur Tribunal had the occasion to consider a case in respect of similar type of share transaction. The decision reported in 13 SOT 61 in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Kusum Lata wherein the Hon'ble Bench held that the share transaction was not bogus. The Hon'ble Bench confirmed the order of CIT (A) who held that assessee has filed the requisite evidence to establish the genuineness of share transaction and merely because share broker could not report the transaction to Stock Exchange,…

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…and therefore admission of the same should not be denied. The law on the issue of admission of additional evidences before the first appellate authority is well settled. In the cases of Mr.Shahrukh Khan 20 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal Vs DCIT (2007) 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai), CIT Vs Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. 293 ITR 53 (Bomb.), CIT Vs Parimal, Kandi Chanda (2007) 291 1TR 77 (Gau), CIT Vs Poddar Swadesh Udyog (P) Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gau), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Born), Surmukh Singh Vs ITO (2008) 115 TTJ (Asr) 852, ITO Vs Dwarka Prasad (1998) 60 TTJ (Pat) 292 and var…

ACIT 9(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. CITYGOLD FARMING P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1728/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 9(2)(2) Citygold Farming P. Ltd., बनाम/ Room No. 665A, 6Th Floor 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road Centre, Road No. 7, Marol, Mumbai. Midc, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafca8865R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manjunathaswamy, DR and Shri Vijaykumar SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT – 9(2)(2) Citygold Farming P. Ltd., बनाम/ Room No. 665A, 6th floor 6th Floor, Akruti Trade Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, MK Road Centre, Road No. 7, Marol, Mumbai. MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFCA8865R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Manjunathaswamy, DR and Shri Vijaykumar Subramanyam ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta, CA and Shri Anuj kisanadwala AR सुनवाई क" ता…

BABA SHANKAR RAJESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 15(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1156/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1156/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Acit, Shri Baba Shankar Rajesh, C3., 3Rd Floor, Old No.17, New No.18, Non-Corporate Circle – 15(1), 2Nd Cresent Park Road, Gandhi Chennai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. Pan: Aagpr 3145K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 10Section 10(4)(ii)

…the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10 (4)(ii) in the return of income. The AO rejected the assessee's claim of exemption and brought to tax and the CIT(A) upheld it. The assessee relied on the tribunal decision in the case of Rachhpal Singh vs ITO reported in 94 ITD 79 and the relevant portion is extracted as under : “6. I have heard both the parties at some length and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. I have also examined the facts, evidence and material on record. In fact, the assessment records were called for from the Income-tax Department and examined. In the returns of income file…

M/S. ANGAD DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 651/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. R.K Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151(2)Section 68

…itional evidence filed in terms of Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules, 1962 after calling for the remand” report from the learned Assessing Officer and thereby not following the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Shah Rukh Khan Vs. DCIT reported in 13 SOT 61 (Mum.). 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the ground of appeal at a later stage.” 5. The assessee has also taken the following additional grounds :- 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant company it is aggrieved as the AO has incorrectly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and the order passed u/s…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3443/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e to satisfy the criteria of reasonable cause and no willful intention in respect of omission of additional grounds and failure to file additional evidences. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement in the case of Shahrukh Khan vs. DCIT [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) whereby it was held that "After calling of remand report on merit as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) was precluded with his discretion for refusing to admit additional evidence" c. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the additional grounds and additional evidences after having discussed the impugne…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3442/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e to satisfy the criteria of reasonable cause and no willful intention in respect of omission of additional grounds and failure to file additional evidences. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement in the case of Shahrukh Khan vs. DCIT [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) whereby it was held that "After calling of remand report on merit as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) was precluded with his discretion for refusing to admit additional evidence" c. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the additional grounds and additional evidences after having discussed the impugne…

SMT. ARUNA CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA No.3438/Del/2017 filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 3441/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…e to satisfy the criteria of reasonable cause and no willful intention in respect of omission of additional grounds and failure to file additional evidences. b. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the judgement in the case of Shahrukh Khan vs. DCIT [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mumbai) whereby it was held that "After calling of remand report on merit as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of rule 46A, Commissioner (Appeals) was precluded with his discretion for refusing to admit additional evidence" c. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the additional grounds and additional evidences after having discussed the impugne…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. PREM ANAND, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3514/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…is a fit case for admission of additional evidence. Hence, all the documents submitted by the appellant are admitted herewith for deciding this appeal on merit and in the interest of justice. Reliance is placed on following case laws: Shahrukh Khan vs DCIT 13 SOT 61(Mum) ITO vs Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD l(TM)(Patna) Rachhpal Singh vs ITO 94 ITD 79 (Asr) Electra Jaipur (P) Ltd. vs Inspecting Asstt. CIT 26 ITD 236(Del) CIT vs K Ravindranathan Nair 265 ITR 217(Ker) Prabhavati S. Shah vs CIT 231 ITR l(Bom) Manish Buildwell (Delhi High Court; order dated 20.11.2011) 3.5 After admission of the additional evidenc…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIIT LTD.,, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 4961/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Circle 9(1), Room No. 163, Vs. M/S. Niit Ltd, B-234, Okhla Indl. C.R. Building, New Delhi Area, Phase-I, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaacn0085D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

…arly it was held in Dwarka Prasad VIs ITo. 63 ITO 1 (TM) that additional evidence if in the interest of justice" and renders assistance to the authority in passing order, may be admitted: Other similar rulings are 68TTJ 722, 231 ITR 1 ,21 SOT 218, 293 ITR 53, 94 ITD 79 etc. Since the AO has not given any adverse comments about the veracity of the documents sought to be admitted as additional evidence, it is held that they are acceptable as evidence. In view of the guidance available in the afore-cited .judicial pronouncements, I hold that the additional evidence as mentioned in para 2.3 above are admissible u/r 4…

SWAPNIL CHANDRAKANT JOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5981/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5981/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mr. Swapnil Chandrakant Ito – 16(3)(3), बनाम/ Joshi, Mumbai. V. 9 A R Block, Sikka Nagar, S.V.P. Road, Girgaon, Mumbai – 400 004. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abspj9363L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal-
Section 143(3)

…he CIT(A) were also not admitted. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [1998] 100 Taxman 404 (Bom.) and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Shahrukh Khan v. DCIT, [2007] 13 SOT 61 (Mum) and submitted that by making this addition of Rs. 18,45,793/-, the Revenue has brought to tax the same income twice which is not permissible. ITA 5981/Mum/2013 5 9. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has earned commission income which is not reflected in the books of account. The assessee has not declared the same in the return of in…

M/S. RESOLUTION COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6624/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Venugopal C. Nair, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shryan Gotru, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 145Section 44A

…T Delhi Bench dt. 12.08.11). (ii). M/s. Roop Tikamdas vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai dated 13.02.2013) (iii). Advance Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi Bench dt. 27.05.11) (iv). Manesh M. Shah vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Bench dt. 30.06.2009) (v). Shahrukh Khan vs. DCIT 13 SOT 61 (ITAT Mum.) The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the remand reports furnished by the AO. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and gone through the material available on record, we find substance in the contentions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. It is notable that even though the remand report of the A…