Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496

8 SOT 691Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4720 most cited

What is Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 authority for?

Statements made during a survey should not be used as the basis for an addition unless they are confronted to the partners of the assessee.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT · 8 SOT 691 · addition based on survey statement · statements not confronted · partners of assessee · ITAT Mumbai

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132(4A)Section 292CSection 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)arbitrary and capricioussection 181section 132(1)(a)section 114(e)section 158b(b)circle ratesection 158bb(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 158bdon-money

Judgments citing Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 504/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 503/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 502/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 501/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

M/S. Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 500/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…