State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf

39 STC 478Supreme Court of India1977#3586 most cited

What is State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf authority for?

The assessee has a right to cross-examine persons whose statements are used against them in assessment proceedings, and the department has a duty to provide copies of such statements or reports.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf · section 132 · right to cross-examination · statements used in assessment · department duty · assessee rights · natural justice · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationthird party informationsection 153(c)onus of proofsection 164retraction of statementsection 31

Judgments citing State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…revent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They do not supplant the law but supplement it.” 23.7 The Full Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of erala s. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478 held as under: „One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural Justice is the rule of audi alteram partum which requires that should be condemned unheard. It is indeed a requirement of the duty to act fairly, which lies on all judicial authorities, and this duty has been extended also the authorities holding administrative…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kozhikode vs. M/S.North Malabar Gramin Bank

ITA/25/2016HC Kerala23 Sept 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

For Appellant: M/S KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATIONFor Respondent: THE STATE OF KERALA

…eyan4, State of Andhra Pradesh v M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.5, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v Union of India6, 20th Century Finance Corpn.Ltd. v State of Maharashtra7, J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v Commercial Taxes Officer8, 1 97 STC 455 (Ker.) 2 39 STC 478 (SC) 3 122 STC 565 (Ker.) 4 1 KTR (1992) 137 (Ker.) 5 10 KTR 272 (2002 (Ker.) 6 142 STC 91(SC) 7 119 STC 182(SC) 8 94 STC 422 (SC) S.T.(Rev.)Nos.25, 26 & 27 of 2016 and OTR(VAT) No.177 of 2017 9 Suzion Infrastructure Service Ltd. v Com…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5740/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 68

…nsidered an essential ingredient of reasonable opportunity to be afforded to an assessee. In the case of K.T. Shaduli vs State of Kerala 29 STC 44, the view of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court was upheld by the Hon'bte Supreme Court. This decision is reported in 39 STC 478. In the case of Vasanji Ghela & Co. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax 40 STC 544, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered various authorities and has held as under: "Held, that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was bad on the ground of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice and the orde…

M/S P. R. Rolling Mills P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)
Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ent on the officer to afford opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the authors of those books as was laid down by this Court in Shaduli vs. State of Kerala (1972) 29 STC 44, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. Shaduli (1977) 39 STC 478.” CIT vs. EASTERN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES (1994) 210 ITR 0103 “As a matter of fact, the right to cross-examine a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross-examination is one of the corner-stones of natural justice.” CIT vs. D.M. JOSHI & ORS (1999) 239 ITR 0315 “The Tribunal after considering all…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM DCIT 4(3)(2) Vs. M/s. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 PAN/GIR No.AAJCS2965E Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by V.Justin / Shri Rajat Mittal Assessee by Shri Suresh Achaliya Date of Hearing 16/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by revenue against the order of CIT(A)-9, Mumbai dated 28/02/2017…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR Jh HkkxpUn] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 481/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2010-11 cuke M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd The DCIT Vs. A-3, Moti Lal Atal Road, Jaipur Central Circle – 1, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGBPS 3591 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by:Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - D…

Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemption), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 516/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmeddr. B.G. Memorial Trust V/S. Cit (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 6/1 Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Kolkat-29 Floor, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaatd 5235 A]

Section 12ASection 133A

…ts:- a) GTC Industries vs. ACIT (1998) 60 TTJ Mumbai b) Manindra Nath Chatterjee vs. Collector of Central Excise & Another Dr. B.G. Memoriala Trust Vs. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 8 c) M.K. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala 40 STC 278 (Kel) d) K.T. Shaduli vs. State of Kerala 39 STC 478 (SC) From the above facts, it is transpired that QSP has made a declaration of income under IDS scheme 2016 which proves that QSP has made the donation to the assessee through cheque and received cash from the assessee-trust. The cash which was available with QSP was declared under IDS scheme, 2016. The assessee has received most of its donation i…

Radharaman Behari Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemption) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 29/KOL/2017[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedradharaman Behari V/S. Commissioner Of Income Trust, 13, Roopchand Tax, (Exemptions), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th Roy Street,Kolkata-007 [Pan No.Aabts 5782 L] Floor, Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12ASection 131Section 133A

…of reasonable opportunity.” Similar judgements were also pronounced by the Hon'ble Keala High Court in the case of M.K. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala [40 STC 278] in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Shaduli vs. State of Kerala [39 STC 478 SC ] All these judgemeknts/decisions lead to one conclusion that right to cross- examine the witness, who made adverse reports, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum,audi alterant partem’. It is pertinent to mention here that the case law mentioned by the assessee trust in the case of S Khader Khan & Sons is not applicab…

Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…erala (1972) [29 STC 44], the Hon'ble Kerala High Court reiterated the aforesaid view. Here it is relevant to highlight that the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala Versus KT, Shaduli Yusuf [39 STC 478] (SC). Also, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has also applied the said principle in the case of CIT Vs P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129. 2.12 In the instant case, the Ld, AO did maintain that the loose sheet of paper, supposedly a foreign bank 15 Shyam Sunder Jindal account, which allegedly, was held by the Appellant, was received under th…

M/S Scantec (India) Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 2893/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh K. Jagia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramanjaneyula, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…Taxman 183 (ii). ACIT vs. Amar Mining Co. 121 ITD-273 (Ahd. Tribunal) 8 ITA No.2893/Del./2011 (iii). DCIT vs. Allied Leather Finisher Pvt. Ltd. (32) SOT 549 (Lko Bench) (iv). C.B. Gautam vs. UOI, 199 ITR 530 (SC) (v). State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuf, 39 STC 478 (SC) (vi). Raghuvir Harihar (1957) ZSTC 770(SC) (vii). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 26 ITR 775. 8. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ld. AO and CIT(A) has examined in detail the appellant’s submissions, but both of t…

Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5490/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria Ito 17(2)(4) 5 Gr Floor, Kaka Bldg, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ 649 Firdoshi Rd. Dadar R.No. 220 4Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400014 Lalbaug, Mumbai-40013 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapa6428N Appellant By Shri Neel Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By Shri A.K. Dhondial (Dr)

Section 133(6)

…tion from a third party, then the assessee is entitled to apply for cross-examination of such person for the purpose of eliciting the truth or for proving that the information furnished by such person is not genuine." 3.State of Kerala V/s. K.T. Shaduli Yusuf 39 STC 478(SC) 9 Firdosh Moshir A. "An assessment cannot be based on the entries in the books of account of a third party without giving the assessee an opportunity of cross-examining that party with reference to those books, if so required." 2. Chamanlal Dhinqra V/s. CIT 212 ITR(St.)365-366 (SC) "An assessment made on the basis of records of an outside par…

DCIT, Circle - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S. Samay Construction Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 85/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09 Dcit, Circle-11, P-7, V/S. M/S Samay Construction Chowringhee Square, Pvt. Ltd., C/O Model Kolkata-700 069 Nursury, 5/1, Tiljola Road, Park Circus, Kolkata – 700 046 [Pan No.Aahcs 8487 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

…is well settled that tax authorities entrusted with the power to make assessment of tax discharge quasi judicial functions and they are bound to observe principles of natural justice in reaching their conclusions State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 STC 478, 481 (SC). The, demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way or for some other purpose S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan AIR (1981) 136, 145 (SC). Principles of natural justice demand that there should be a fair determination of…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [Jv]

ITTA/212/2015HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY