How many judgments cite Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT?

186 judgments on BharatTax cite Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (231 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 1961), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 68.

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

Issues it is cited on

section 250(4)admission of additional evidence source of source shell company rule 46a section 246 section 41 addition under section 68 principal commissioner of income-tax section 251 share application money documents seized

Judgments citing Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

Bina Sudhirkumar Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 76/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ms. Bina Sudhirkumar Doshi Asst. Cit-24(1), B-601, Ganga Vihar, Mumbai Vs. Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058 Pan/Gir No. Aajpd 0267 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Rahul Sarda & Appellant By Shri Sashank Dundu Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha : 26.11.2018 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2019

For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 54Section 54F

…the issues. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that the aforesaid additional evidence may kindly be admitted in the interest of justice and fair play. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Born) and Patna Tribunal in the case of Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.) (TM) for the admission of additional evidence. 7. In the compilation in paper book, the additional evidence submitted is as under: Sr. Particulars Page Nos. No. Purchase agreement dated 30th May, 20. 173-209 2012 of flat at Sai Enterprise 21. Photographs showing present stage…

M/S Mathur Marketing Pvt.Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi & Anr

ITA/90/2004HC Delhi26 Nov 2018

Bench: The High Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. An Affidavit· Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Appellant In Which It Has Been Stated That The Issue Of Powers Of Commissioner (Appeals) Had Come In Appeal Under Rule 46A & Were Specifically Raised Before The High Court.

Section 144Section 145Section 260A

…tained in sub-clause (1) of Rule 46A shall not be applicable and there shall not be any necessity on the part of the CIT(A) to get them subjected to scrutiny by the AO. Counsel also relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Smt. Prabhavati Shah 's (1998) 231 ITR 1 which explained the provisions relating to admission of new evidence before the CIT( A) under Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules 1962. The Court held that “It does not deal with the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to make further enquiry or to direct the Income- tax officer to make further enquiry and to report the result of the…

Shri Rambadal Dhuman Yadav, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(6), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1846/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Assessment Proceedings”. Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submits That As The Assessment Was Framed Ex-Parte, Due To Factors Beyond The Control Of The Assessee, It Was A Fit Case In Which The Additional Evidences Should Have Been Admitted By The I Ta N O. 1 8 4 6/ Ah D 2 01 4 R A Mb A D Al D H U Mu N Y A Da V Vs . I To Ass E Ss Me N T Y Ea R : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 2 Of 9

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

…I TA N o. 1 8 4 6/ Ah d 2 01 4 R a mb a d al D h u mu n Y a da v Vs . I TO Ass e ss me n t Y ea r : 2 0 10 - 1 1 Page 1 of 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD ‘D’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar, Vice President] Assessment Year: 2010-11 Rambadal Dhumun Yadav .......…………...........Appellant B/46, Parth Housing Complex, Nr. Akota Garden Char Rasta, BPC Road, Akota, Baroda [PAN : AAMPY 9110 D] Vs. Income Tax Officer ............................ Respondent Ward 2(6), Baroda Appearances by: Anil R Shah & Kinjal Shah, for the appellant Vinod Talwani, for the respond…

ITO 4(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Cincom Trading P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4520/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri S. C. Tiwari & Rutuja Pawar

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No. 4520/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) ITO-4(1)(4), M/s. Cincom Trading Pvt. Ltd. 6th Floor, Room No. 637-A, Room No. 3, Moolchandlalji Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Building, 2, 23-E, Zaobawadi, Thakurdwar, Mumbai-400 002 PAN/GIR No. AAECC 0377 K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Respondent by : Shri S. C. Tiwari & Rutuja Pawar Date of Hearing : 07.08.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This is an appeal by t…

Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd., Jhunjhunu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 279/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate and Ms. Eisha Kanoongo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, JCIT - DR

Section 115BSection 68

…- If evidence (iii) produced by assessee is genuine, reliable and proves assessee's case than assessee should not be denied opportunity of it being produced even if he first time produces same before appellate authority. (iv) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) - Production of additional evidence - assessee taking loans from two creditors - ITO treating loans as income from undisclosed sources as summons could not be served on creditors - Assessee wanting to prove genuineness of loan by relying on fact that amount borrowed and repaid by cheques. Assessee producing Photostat copies of cheques and ce…

M/S Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries, Kangra vs. DCIT, Circle, Shimla

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1716/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aashre SarnaFor Respondent: Shri Manu Malik, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1716 & 1717/Chd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/s Shree Ganesh Concast Group Vs. The D.C.I.T., Of Industries, Industrial Area Circle – Shimla. Sansarpur Terrace, Distt. Kangra(H.P.) PAN: ABGFS0856H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Aashre Sarna Respondent by : Shri Manu Malik, CIT DR Date of hearing :06.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement :10.07.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : Both the above captioned appeals have been pr…

Knight Raj Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3451/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan

Section 23Section 40Section 68

…evidence go into the root of the issues. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that the aforesaid additional evidence may kindly be admitted in the interest of justice. The Applicant relies on the ratio laid by Bombay High Court Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and Patna Tribunal in the case of Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.)(TM) for admission of Additional evidence. 9 M/s. Knight Raj Properties Pvt. Ltd. 15. We have heard both the counsel and carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that these issues need to be sent to…

Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh Income Tax Officer - Room No. 3, Maharashtra Vs. 19(3)(2), Mumbai Now Nagar No.1 Sloughter Assessed With Ito- House Compound, Bandra 23(1)(2). (E), Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Ccmps1035D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 131Section 144Section 148Section 68

…cuments he is putting his thump impression for signature. It is submitted that the additional evidence produced by it at serial no. 3 to 7 and 9 have got direct bearing on the present appeal. Reliance is placed by him on the decision in Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat) (TM) for admission of the above additional evidence. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR submits that nothing prevented the appellant in producing the above documents either before the AO or the Ld. CIT(A). It is stated by him that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. After r…

V.M. Precision Punch Pvt.Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 998/HYD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…counters the argument of the Department by observing that the details submitted are crucial to the ground raised in the appeal and therefore, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1), additional evidence was admitted. 12. However, while considering the additional evidence Ld. CIT(A) observed that even though the identity of the creditor was proved, the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions are not established and accordingly the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. Further aggr…

The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Harjivanbhai Chaganbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2460/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2384/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs Income-Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2460/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Harjivanbhai C. Patel, C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Income-Tax, Vs Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pd. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Ahmedabad Dated 21St July, 2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

…case laws on the subject is considered:- i) ITO vs. Modi Rubber Limited 43 ITD 396 (ITAT - Del) ii) PrabhavatiS, ShahVs. CIT231 ITR 1 (Bom.) iii) K. Mohammed Vs. ITO 107 ITR 808 (Ker.) iv) Dwarka Prasad Vs. ITO 63 ITD 1 (ITAT - Pat) v) B.L. Choudhury Vs. CIT 105 ITR 371 (Ori.) vi) ITO Vs. Industrial Roadways (2007) 19(I) ITCL 460 (ITAT-Mum). vii) CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC). viii) CIT vs. Nirbheram Daluram 224 ITR 610 (SC) In view of ratio laid down in above case laws, the additional evidences so submitted are decided to be admitted. The jurisdictional directions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Co…

Shri Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2384/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR

Section 131Section 143(3)

Riteplaza Trading Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 5558/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

…ervices Ltd 2017) 167 ITD 717 (Del-Trib) 7. Bombay Gas Co Ltd (2012) 54 SOT 13 (Mum) 8. Samrat Rice Mills (P) Ltd 54 SOT 1 (Del) 9. Tosha International Ltd 331 ITR 440 (Del) 10.Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd 293 ITR 53 (Bom) 11.Prabhavati S Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supporting the order of CIT(A) submitted that the assessee derived benefit out of remission or cessation of liability towards loan received from M/s Om Metal Infraprojects Ltd which is evident from the fact that the creditor has accepted before the AO tht it has unilaterally written off the liability as bad…

Mukta Arts Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 11(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1658/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1658/Mum/2013 & 1629/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) बिाम/ Mukta Arts Limited Addl. Cit 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Mukta House Aayakar Bhavan, Filmcity Complex, M K Road V. Goregaon(East) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400065 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacm9513F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri. T A Khan

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…hereafter adjudicated on merits. Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules is meant to advance justice and not to scuttle genuine assessee’s. The assessee has rightly relied upon decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Smt Prabhavati Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1(Bom.). We direct admission of these additional evidences in the interest of substantial justice. The learned DR has relied upon the orders of authorities below. After hearing both the parties and after perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered view, that this issue need to be restored to the file of the AO for de-novo adjudication…

Rajabahadur B. Yadav, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4000/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajbahadur B. Yadav Ito-22(3)(3), Room No. 442, Namdev Room No. 308, 3Rd Vs. Nagar, Dighe Thane, Near Floor, Tower No. 6, Digha Bab Temple, Belapur Vashi Railway Station Road, New Complex, Navi Mumbai-400708. Mumbai-400705. Pan No. Abkpy2651C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR

Section 143Section 69

…ese were not filed before the Rajbahadur B. Yadav 6 AO. It is the contention of the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted under Rule 46A the additional evidence in the shape of affidavits filed before him. In Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [(1998) 231 ITR 1, 8-9 (Bom)], loans taken by the assessee were treated by the ITO as income from undisclosed sources because the summons could not be served on the creditors. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee wanted to prove the genuineness of the loan from one of the borrowers by relying upon the fact that the amount had been received by the asses…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.5643/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–3(4) ……………. Appellant Central Range–3, Mumbai v/s M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Samir Complex St. Andrews Road, Op Holy Family ……………. Respondent Hospital, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 PAN – AAACJ9758M C.O. no.105/Mum./2017 Arising out of ITA no.5643/Mum./2015 (Assessment Year : 2005–06) M/s. Jivesh Developers & Properties Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Samir Complex…

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tulip Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5151/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14A

…l. Therefore, in my opinion, circumstances mentioned under Rule 46A(c)& (d) apply to this case. 5.4.8 In admitting the application of the appellant u/r 46A, 1 place my reliance on Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs. C./.T. (1998) 231 ITR 1. In this case, the summons issued by the ITO to confirm creditors had remained unserved and the amounts were added as bogus credit. The Hon'ble High Court observed: "He was never informed by the Income-tax Officer that the creditors were not available _ or unidentifiable. If he had been informed by the 25 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Income-tax Offic…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(2), Amritsar vs. Sh. Harpreet Singh Sandhu (HUF), Amritsar

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, and the assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 569/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt. Balwinder Kaur (DR)For Respondent: Sh. P.N.Arora (Adv.)

Section 144Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…the Act or Rule is under challenge. On that basis, it is claimed that the Revenue has challenged Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ hereinafter) per the instant appeal, relying on the decision in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom). 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. We find no basis whatsoever in the Revenue’s reliance on para 8 of the Board Circular 21/2015. The Revenue per its instant appeal is actually challenging the non observance of rule 46A of the Rules, mandatory in nature, by the first appellate authority. It is therefore in fac…

American Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (E) I(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 971/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 American Education Trust, Acit-I(1) S.V. Road, Parekh Nagar, Mumbai. Vs. Behind Gokul Nagar, Kandivali (W), Mumbai- 400067. Pan No. Aaata4303N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2018

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

…Education Trust 5 evidence has got a direct bearing on the issues involved in the present appeal and therefore, the same may be admitted. In this regard, reliance is placed by him on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) and the order of the Tribunal in Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144 (Pat.) (TM). 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relies on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). It is stated by him that as per the working given by the AO on page 7 of the assessment order, the assessee has not received the amount @ 20% of gross receipts and hence consideration being inadequate, the prov…

Reymount Commodities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

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

ITA 3885/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 28Section 68

…levant submissions of the assessee, taken into account the remand report of the AO, rejoinder of the assessee and also by relying upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah vs CIT 231 ITR 1, observed that the facts narrated in the assessment order and brought before him during the appellate proceedings clearly indicated that the assessee was prevented by sufficient case from producing the evidence within the meaning of sub clauses (b) & (c) of sub Rule (1) of Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1967. Therefore, he admitted additional evidences…

Development Excellence Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) I(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Development Ito(E)-1(1) Excellence Foundation Vs. Room No. 508, 2Nd Floor, Dukanwala Piramal Chambers, Estate, Above General Lalbaug Medical, 47 Dr Nair Road, Mumbai-400013 Mumbai-400008 Pan No. Aaatd2469E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nitesh Joshi & Mr. Mihir Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

…It is also submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence filed before him. Reliance is placed by him on the M/s Development Excellence Foundation 3 judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom). On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. As mentioned hereinbefore the AO has issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) dated 21.09.2012 and 11.07.2013 to the assessee. Then he made the assessment u/s 144 stating that there was no…