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

DCIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Education Research P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for A

ITA 4750/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Shri. Viral Doshi

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 68

…e or where the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing or where the AO has made the order appealed against without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to any ground of appeal. 8. In Smt. Prabhavati S Shah’s case (1998 231 ITR 1) the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that that if prima facie evidence is necessary to examine the claim of the assessee, the CIT(A) should consider the necessary evidence in exercise of powers u/s 250(4) of the Act even if the case of the assessee does not fall within conditions prescribed under Rule 46(1) of the Income Tax Rules. Hence…

Asst CIT RG 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ojas Mall Management P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7322/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Ram Lal Negi A C I T – 10(3)(1) M/S. Ojas Mall Management P. Ltd. Room No. 218, 2Nd Floor Knowledge House, Off Jogeshwari Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vikroli Link Road, Shaym Nagar Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aaaco8406H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…appeal under Rule 46A or to cause any enquiry to be made under section 250(4) of the Act which has been done. In support of this arguments, the learned A.R. placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom) (ii) B.L. Choudhary vs. CIT (1976) 105 ITR 371 (Orissa) (iii) CIT vs. Poddar Swadesh Udyog P. Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 252 (Gauhati) 3.4 In rejoinder, the learned D.R. submitted that the arguments put forth by the learned A.R. in support of the action of the learned CIT(A) in the 4 M/s. Ojas Mall Management P. Ltd. impugned order are factually err…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…establishing the merits of the case and genuineness of the case of the assessee and the same may be admitted in the interest of justice and fair play. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom. HC) and decision of Patna ITAT in the case of Abhay Kumar 63 ITD 144(Pat)(TM). ITA 800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 21 The learned DR on the other hand submitted that survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act in the case of Moxdiam on 07-07-2008 wherein statements were recorded on oath u/s 131 of the Act of the partners wherein they admitted t…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mohd Hussain Noor Mohd Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for the Asst

ITA 1932/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Jain

Section 143(3)Section 68

…as additional evidence, a grave injustice will be caused to the applicant/assessee. The Ld. AR relying on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court in CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 227 ITR 345(Raj), Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Smt. Prabhavati V. Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) submitted that since the assessee has been prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny the admission of crucial evidence for the reason that it was not produced before the authorities below. 4. The Ld. DR opposed the application on the ground that since the assessee has failed to…

Yatin Hariram Ruparel, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2424/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Yatin Hariram Ruparel Ito-17(3)(4), बनाम/ 7, View Villa, Piramal Chambers, 425, Shradhanand Cross Road, Lalbaug, Parel-12 Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpr 2921 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinesh Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 07.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 28.12.2011. 2. The Issue Arising In The Instant Appeal, Raised Per Several Grounds, Is The Exigibility To Tax Of The Gains Arising To The Assessee On The Sale Of His Interest In A Land And, In Case Taxable, The Value & The Manner Of Taxability Of Such Gain Under The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “जी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2424/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Yatin Hariram Ruparel ITO-17(3)(4), बनाम/ 7, View Villa, Piramal Chambers, 425, Shradhanand Cross Road, Lalbaug, Parel-12 Vs. Matunga, Mumbai-400 019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AACPR 2921 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Dinesh Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.6.2016 Date of He…

G.R. Pandya Share Broking Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 13, Mumbai

Appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Kashinath-ARFor Respondent: Shri P.O. Meena-DR

Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ जी जी जी” खंडपीठ जी Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं, राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, "याियक राम लाल नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/539/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. G.R. Pandya Share Broking ACIT,CC-13 11th Floor, Room No.1103, Old CGO Ltd.C/o., Shah and Comp…

Samson Alex, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(3)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 867/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Samson Alex Ito-22(2)(3), A-1001, Natasha, Gr. Floor, Mumbai बनाम/ Nikita Natasha Chs, Amrut Nagar, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu

Section 143(3)Section 69

…ion by the ld. CIT(A) with reference to the admission of additional evidence, we find the same as not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case, relying on the decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom). Rather, there could be an occasion for the ld. CIT(A) to himself require the assessee, in order to enable him to substantiate his case and with a 5 Samson Alex vs. ITO view to arrive at his own satisfaction, adduce evidence, and to which the rule 46A itself, vide clause (4) thereof, makes an exception. Needless to add, the appellate order be…

Kartik Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(1), Vashi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, i

ITA 3310/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Jayant BhattFor Respondent: Shri S. R. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…4.1 of the assessment order). The further documents furnished in the appellate proceedings were only in substantiation of his claims and, rather, being corroborative, ought to have been admitted by the ld. CIT(A) (refer: Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom)). Once the transactions with PLPL are admittedly undisclosed, any credit (transfer of funds) from it, whether on account of income or on capital account, is liable to be deemed as income u/s.69. The only caution that needs to be exercised is that there is no duplication or excess addition in- as-much as the same funds may be rotated/circulate…

Concord Enviro Systems (P ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 10, Mumbai

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

ITA 3917/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) Acit -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, Hdil Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian,DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “C” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) ACIT -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, HDIL Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, v. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACC8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue by : Dr. S. Pandian,DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 31-03-2016 घोष…

Family Plastics and Thermoware, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. 20(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1691/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Family Plastics & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Thermoware, Tax – 20(3), 4 Radha Apartments, Mumbai Vs. Telli Galli, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069 Pan: Aaaff4968L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Gopal, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Senthil Kumaran, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumaran, D.R

Section 172Section 195Section 40Section 44B

…250 of the Act. The duty was also cast upon the learned CIT(A) to admit and consider the evidence produced before him by the assessee if, the same go to the root of the case. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Smt. Prabhavati S.Shah v. CIT” [(1998) 231 ITR 1 (Bom.)] has held that the powers conferred on the first appellate authority under sub-section (4) of section 250 of the Act, being a quasi-judicial power, it is incumbent on him to exercise the same, if the facts and circumstances justify. Even otherwise under rule 46A(4) of the Income tax Rules, the CIT(A) has been given power to call for producti…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai

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

ITA 5978/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, DCIT, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 th floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, v. CST Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AMEPS 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5978/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) DCIT, Cen. Cir. 44, बना…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

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

ITA 5813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

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)

…ot be denied the opportunity. Similarly 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…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4512/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri V.S. Jadhav,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…g 52 ITD 286 (Ahm) 6. DCIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG (2006) 100 ITD 285 (Mum)[SB] following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Puri v. CIT, 151 ITR 84. 7. Electra Jaipur v. IAC, (1988)26 ITD 236 (Del.-Trib.) and 8. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT, (1998)231 ITR 1 (Bom) 8. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and also perused the material available on record . We have also gone through case laws relied upon by both the rival parties. We have observed that additions have been made to the income of the assessee by the A.O. o…

ACIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Yuva Textiles Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6863/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Yuva Textile Income Tax-8(3), Room Industries Ltd., 188/5C, No.217, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building No.45, M.K. Marg, Mittal Industrial Estate, Mumbai 400 020. Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059. Pan: Aaacy 0568Q Appellant .. Respondent

…allowed. As regards objection of AO to the submission of additional evidence Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962 the following decisions permit the admission of such evidence which is necessary and relevant for deciding the appeal:- (a) CIT vs. Smt. Prabhavati Shah 231 ITR 1 (Bom) (b) CIT vs. Suretech Hospital & Research Centre Ltd (2007) 293 ITR 53 (Bom) Hence, the objection of the A.O. is overruled.” From careful reading of the above paragraph we have noticed that the CIT (A) has deleted the additions of Rs. 61,99,005/- solely on the 4 ACIT vs. M/s. Yuva Textile Industries Ltd. ground that since the AO in the reman…

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)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर 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) Assessee by Shri Devendra Jain Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal- DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 24-2-2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronou…

Syed Ahmed Abbas Naqvi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for both the years are dismissed

ITA 7668/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…unctory approach in the matter, though, as adopted by the Revenue, would not suffice, particularly as the payments – or most of them, are claimed to be made by cheques. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in Prabhavati S. Shah vs. ITO [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom). At the same time, it cannot be said or accepted that merely for the reason that the payments stand reflected, even where so, in the books of account of the assessee, their source is to be accepted as explained. The onus on the assessee is to prove the same, so that the same would stand to be ascertained only on examination of the said books…

Indrakumar Patodia, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 4275/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2016AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 1998-99 Shri Indra Kumar Patodia, Income Tax Officer 24(2)(4), Residing At B/1206, Marine Lines, Abrol Vastu Park, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Evershine Nagar, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400 064 Pan: Aacpp 1552E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B.C.S. Naik, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement :03 .02.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the Income Tax Act. Hence, both the aforesaid decisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case. 9. Similarly, reliance placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998) 231 ITR 1 and Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri V/s. Union of India & Anr. reported in [2006] 286 ITR 428 (Bom) are also misplaced, because, in both the aforesaid cases, the issue was regarding allowability of the additional evidence before the disposal of the appeal by the ITAT and not after the disposal of the appeal by the ITAT. Therefore, these two decisions als…

Sneha Murli Gulabani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4083/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4083/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sneha Murli Gulabani Asst. Cit-18(3) Legal Heir Of Late Shri Murli Gulabani Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, बनाम/ 2, Vasudeva Building, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400 012 16Th Road, Bandra (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpg 3695 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.12.2015 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 05.03.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008- 09 Vide Order Dated 24.12.2010. 2 Sneha Murli Gulabani Vs. Asst. Cit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…nsider it to be a fit case for the exercise of the power by the first appellate authority, which are not constrained by rule 46A(1), but covered by r. 46A(4), even as explained by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT [1998] 231 ITR 1 (Bom). The assessee has admitted to her claim being discrepant, revising it to a lower sum of Rs.16,18,149/-. The same has been confirmed on the basis of the information in respect of the transactions with the assessee’s broker, called for and received by the A.O. from the relevant stock exchange (representing the relevant market). I therefore see…