Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1High Court1998#512 most cited

What is Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT authority for?

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

186

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT · Prabhavati S. Shah · admission of additional evidence · Rule 46A Income Tax Rules · CIT(A) appellate powers · Section 250 Income Tax Act · Section 251 Income Tax Act · production of additional evidence · undue hardship justice · true state of affairs · Appellate Assistant Commissioner powers

Also reported as

100 Taxmann 404

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 1961)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 68Section 250Section 1962

Issues it is cited on

section 250(4)admission of additional evidencesource of sourceshell companyrule 46asection 246section 41addition under section 68principal commissioner of income-taxsection 251share application moneydocuments seized

Judgments citing Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

Linfox Logistics (India) Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle (10)(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 120/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR
Section 234CSection 270ASection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37

…mpart the justice and to decide the issue once for all, vital evidence necessary to decide the issue in question is required to be brought on record to be examined by the concerned AO in the light of the settled principle of law in cases of Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) & K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 (SC) 1526. 11. So we hereby admit the additional evidence sought to be led by the assessee and remanded the matter back to AO to decide afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. Accordingly, ground Nos.2 to 5 are decided in favour of the assessee for statistica…

M/S Kerala Automobiles Ltd, Trivandrum vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 176/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Anand George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251Section 68

…d the assessment, directing fresh assessment, or exercised his power u/r. 46A(4), calling for material from the assessee to substantiate it’s claims before him. Reference in this regard may be made to, inter alia, decisions in Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom); CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. [2013] 351 ITR 57 (Del);Velji Deoraj& Co. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 708 (Bom), to cite some; the case law in the matter being legion. Even as the latter two decisions are in relation to the power of the Tribunal u/r. 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the same is in paramateria with r. 46A(4).His order, rather…

Mr Ashok Bhoir, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department Ward 28(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1014/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemr. Ashok Bhoir V. Income-Tax Department 907, Juhu Gaon Ward No. 28(1)(2) Sector – 11/1 Mumbai Behind Marathi School, Vashi Pan: Bpbpb5105G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 4Section 45Section 48Section 49Section 56

…before the Assessing Officer any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal. 7. That support in this connection appellant wish to place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati M. Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1.” 8. Ld. DR has no serious objections in sending back the matter to the file of the assessing officer. 9. We have heard the submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the additional evidences furnished before Ld.CIT(A). We are of the view that these evidences go to the root of the matter, it needs proper verifica…

DCIT, Ahmedabad vs. Shri Vinodchandra Shanabhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed subject to the direction

ITA 1597/AHD/2017[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1597/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., Shri Vinodchandra Shanabhai Patel, Circle-3(2), Vs. 28, Nirant Park, Ahmedabad. Opp. Sun & Step Club Road, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061. Pan: Afepp6977J

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki Sr. D.R
Section 133A

…in applying the procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but a 'nuation of the original proceeding and what the Income-tax Officer, could have done, the appellate authority a/so could do." Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 1, (Born.) has observed that "CIT(A) is empowered u/s.250(4) to make such further inquiry as he thinks fit and such power being quasi judicial power, it was incumbent on him to exercise the same if the facts and circumstances justify. It further held that if the first appellate authority failed to exercise his discretion judicially and arbitrarily re…

Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT - Ccc- 7(2)`, Mumbai

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

ITA 4940/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyanchor Electricals Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax, Central 3Rd Floor, I-Think Techno Circle-7(2) Campus, Pokhran Road Room No.655, 6Th Floor, No.2, Thane (W), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400607 Road, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaeca2190C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M.P. Lohia &For Respondent: Yogesh Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ote of royalty for trademark for A.Y. 2013-14 dated 25.01.2014 & 26.04.2014; and (iii) copy of trademark agreement dated 11.09.2014. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on the following case law for admitting additional evidences: “i. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom). ii. CIT Vs. Ganibhai Wahabbhai (1998) 232 ITR 900 (MP) iii. Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM) iv. Abhay Kumar Shroff 63 ITD 144 (Pat (TM) v. K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy AIR 1963 (SC) 1526 vi. Rajmoti Industries (1995) 52 ITD 286.” We have perused the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and also perused the finding of…

DCIT, Corporate Circ Cle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 355/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 35A

…Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on…

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 327/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 35A

…Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1831/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-09 to 11-12 procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but continuation of the original proceeding and what the ITO could have done, the appellate authority also could do." 5.3.4.3 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bombay) has observed as under: "On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that the same is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the 1 TO except in the circumstances set out the…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1830/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-09 to 11-12 procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but continuation of the original proceeding and what the ITO could have done, the appellate authority also could do." 5.3.4.3 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bombay) has observed as under: "On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that the same is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the 1 TO except in the circumstances set out the…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1829/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-09 to 11-12 procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but continuation of the original proceeding and what the ITO could have done, the appellate authority also could do." 5.3.4.3 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bombay) has observed as under: "On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that the same is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the 1 TO except in the circumstances set out the…

Dy.CIT (E) -2(1), Mumbai vs. Mumbai Educational Trust, Mumbai

ITA 1828/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh DharapFor Respondent: Ms. Achal Sharma CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(33)Section 11Section 13Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…-09 to 11-12 procedural provisions of the Act. An appeal is but continuation of the original proceeding and what the ITO could have done, the appellate authority also could do." 5.3.4.3 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bombay) has observed as under: "On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that the same is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC any evidence, whether oral or documentary, other than the evidence produced by him during the course of the proceedings before the 1 TO except in the circumstances set out the…

Curia India Private Limited(After Merger Amri India Private Limited), Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle -1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/HYD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Ananaya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ional evidences filed before him. For the above proposition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions:- i. PCIT vs Daljit singh Sra [ITA No.98/2017] [2017] 80 taxmann.com 271(Punjab & Haryana) ii. Smt. Prabhavati s.Shah vs.CIT[1998] 231 ITR 1(Bombay) iii. Abhay Kumar shroff vs. ITO [1997] 63 ITR 144(Patna) iv.Make My Trip(India) Pvt.Ltd. vs DCIT [ITA No.2307 & 4757/Del/2013](ITAT,Del) v. Smt. Avan Gidwani Vs. ACIT [ITA No.5138/M/2015](ITAT,Mum) 6 Curia India Private Limited vi.Mrs. Manisha Bipin Bhinsara vs. ITO [2016] 49 ITR[T] 517(ITAT,Mumbai) vii. Naresh Chauhan v. DCIT[2016] 48 ITR…

DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. the Orissa State Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 43B

…rt in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) P a g e 2 | 13 Assessment Year : 2009-10 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will require re-adjudication of the matter by the CIT(A). In this regard, reliance is placed on fol…

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Mumbai vs. JCIT 20(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3507/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT-DR
Section 80I

…therefore, sought to submit complete details. The ld.CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO on the admission of the additional evidences, and thereafter putting reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Prabhavati Shah, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) allowed such application. She took the evidence sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence. The ld.CIT(A) thereafter called for a remand report from the AO on such evidence and made analysis in order to determine whether the existing plant & machinery exceeds 20% of the old machinery in the total value of the plant & machiner…

M/S Wavell Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1644/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ents before the lower authorities in support of valuation report. It was stated that these are necessary for deciding the issue of addition. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bombay). It was also stated that unless these are considered the issue of share premium and its taxability could not be decided. She submitted that there is a clarification dated 5 June 2021 issued by the Chartered Accountant on the share valuation certificate dated 30 November 2014 and certificate of Chartered Engineer based on which share valuat…

Jt. CIT(OSD)-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1288/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaacw0598C M/S Wavell Investment Pvt. Ltd. Jt. Cit (Osd) 15, Mohindra House, 2(3)(1) Room No. 552, 5 Th Floor, J N Heredia Marg, Vs. Ballard Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 038 (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms Ritika Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.08.2022

For Appellant: Ms Ritika Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ents before the lower authorities in support of valuation report. It was stated that these are necessary for deciding the issue of addition. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bombay). It was also stated that unless these are considered the issue of share premium and its taxability could not be decided. She submitted that there is a clarification dated 5 June 2021 issued by the Chartered Accountant on the share valuation certificate dated 30 November 2014 and certificate of Chartered Engineer based on which share valuat…

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 6805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 6805 /Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13 ) Ito- 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Patel Road, Mumbai -400051. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-77, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.T.Shankar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 57

…the AAC under sub-section (4) of section 250. The purpose of rule 46A appears to be to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the ITO. 5. We are supported in our above conclusion by the decision of the Orissa High Court in B.L. Choudhury v. CIT (1976] 105 ITR 371 in which it was held: "Wide provision has, thus, been made conferring jurisdiction on the first appellate authority 10 make such inquiry as he deems fit. The provision seems to have been based on the fact that before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner there is generally no opposite party. The appellate authority himself is the departmental aut…

Virendra Manakchand Begani (HUF), Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 87/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Virendra Manakchand Begani (Huf), I.T.O., 3-B, Shubh Laxmi Appt., City Light Ward-1(3)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395007, Surat. Surat. Pan No. Aaihv 4669 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Physical Court) Virendra Manakchand Begani (HUF), I.T.O., 3-B, Shubh Laxmi Appt., City Light Ward-1(3)(4), Vs. Road, Surat-395007, Surat. Surat. PAN No. AAIHV 4669 N Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Appellant represented by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Respondent represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing 07/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 07/07/2022 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the…

Dy CIT-Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Jamil Ahmed Quireshi, Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 22(1), Vs. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Qureshi Piramal Chambers, Lal 102, Emerland Baug, Parel, Apartment, Near Dadar Mumbai-400012. Shakari Bank, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpq1063C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhaval Jariwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Kabra.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Jariwala.AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…ssessee was prevented by sufficient cause from production of above Mr. Jamil Ahmed Qureshi, Mumbai evidences before. the Ld. AO. It has been held in number of cases including in Keshaw Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 and Smt. Prabhavati S Shah (1998) 231 ITR 1 (BOM). It is now settled and recognized as Rule 46A that the appellate authority has a right to admit authority has a right to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice. 5. The enclosed paper books are in duplicate with a request to kindly allow an opportunity to the ld. AO to rebut the same in terms of Rule 46(3) We trust your goodself…

Sri. George Mathew, Cochin vs. The ITO, Cochin

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 251/COCH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuteam Sustain Cr Building Vs. Plot No. 71, Mra I.S. Press Rod Kakkanadu, Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adwpm1819L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Preetha S. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT-DR
Section 40

…remit the case to the Income Tax Officer for fresh consideration. Therefore, this judgment does not support the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue. 20. Insofar as the Bombay High Court judgment in Smt.Prabhavati Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) is concerned that was a case where the provisions contained in Section 250 of the Act and Rule 46A of the Rules were dealt with. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment reads thus: “On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the Appellate Assistant Com…