How many judgments cite Tek Ram v. CIT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite Tek Ram v. CIT (357 ITR 133), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Tek Ram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 37(1), Section 115BBE, Section 144, Section 250.

Tek Ram v. CIT

357 ITR 133Supreme Court of India2013#2681 most cited

What is Tek Ram v. CIT authority for?

When relevant documents or additional evidence have a direct bearing on an issue, they may be allowed to be produced or admitted at the appellate stage, potentially leading to a de novo adjudication by the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

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

Tek Ram v. CIT · admission of additional evidence · production of documents · ITAT Rule 29 · de novo adjudication · appellate stage evidence · fresh consideration by AO · Section 250

Also reported as

262 CTR 11844 Taxmann.com 367

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 115BBE Section 144 Section 250 Section 143(2)Section 147

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 35ad section 35a section 142a admission of additional evidence section 151a panchnama on-money long term capital gains faceless assessment section 35 section 37(1)

Judgments citing Tek Ram v. CIT

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

…be admitted as additional evidence under Rule 46A since the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause in not submitting the same to the Ld. AO and reference was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram reported at 357 ITR 133 in which it has been held that additional evidence even if, it is submitted before the High Court/Apex Court, the same deserves to be admitted provided it as a nexus to the issue in hand. It was submitted that this certificate is very much relevant to their claim of deduction u/s 35AD and, therefore, the same deserves admission. 24. The submissi…

Mankind Pharma Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the additional Ground No

ITA 2313/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 270ASection 35Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2313/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 Mankind Pharma Limited DCIT 208 Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III Vs. Circle-1(1)(1) Okhla Industrial Estate S.O. Tehkand Meerut South East Delhi TAN/PAN: AAACM9401C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Shri Sudarshan Roy, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 08 02 2024 Date of pronouncement: 01 05 2024 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA-AM: The captioned…

Shrijeet Finance P Ltd, Beed vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.439/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shrijeet Finance Private Limited, The Assistant Ambejogai Road, Parli, V Commissioner Of Maharashtra – 431515. S Income Tax, Circle, Pan: Aaqcs2652F Jalna. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 25.10.2021 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.6,66,151/- Shrijeet Finance Private Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 68

…nt prays that in the interest of justice the additional evidences may be admitted and the issue may be decided after considering the additional evidences. The Appellant relies on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram v. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 133 wherein it was held that where documents filed by assessee before Court had some relevance, same should be considered while deciding appeal. 2.1 The ld.AR has relied on the following decisions : 1. Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench in ITO Vs. CD Patani Nagri Sahkari Pat Sanstha in ITA No.727/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 dated 28.03.2023. 2. Hon’ble ITAT Pune…

Servier India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (I) P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6567/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.6567/मुं/2011 (िन.व. 2005-06) Servier India Private Limited [Formerly Known As Serdia Pharmaceuticals (India) Pvt.Ltd.] 1703, 17Th Floor, B Wing, Parinee Crescenzo, Plot Nos C-38/39, “G” Block, Behind Mca, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaacs-6696-R ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-7(2), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate With S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr & Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R , सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Advocate with S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik Poddar AdvocatesFor Respondent: S/Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR and Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)

…riority of its APIs in question viz-a-viz the comparable selected by the TPO. The ld.Counsel for the assessee in support of his arguments of admission of additional evidence placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Tek Ram (dead) through L.Rs vs. CIT, 357 ITR 133(SC); (ii) Test Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., 197 Taxman 128 (Del) (iii) K.Venkataramaih vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Other, AIR 1963 (SC) 1526. 7. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department vehemently objected to the application for filing of additional evidence at this belated stage. 8. On merits of the adjustment the ld.Counsel for the…

Shri Kuldeep Singh Son of Shri.Bhura Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 ( 4 ), Mansa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 82/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 147Section 250Section 69

…l evidence the assessee filed the affidavit related to confirmation of the purchaser for receiving the amount as per the agreement to sale. In written submission the assesseerespectfully relied on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 held that the additional evidence is being relevant and required to be looked into. 5. The ld. Sr. DR had not made any objection related to acceptance of the additional evidence of the assessee. I.T.A. No.82/Asr/2021 5 Assessment Year: 2012-13 6. We peruse the documents& submission of assessee available in the record& consider the orders of…

M/S. Stillwater Defence Textile Tech P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 3(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1238/MUM/2021[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Stillwater Defence Ito-3(3)(2), Textile Tech P. Ltd., Air India Building, Block No.C-96, Nariman Point, Ttc Industrial Estate, Vs. Mumbai - 400021 Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400 705 Pan: Aadcc6835B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi, A.R. &For Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr. A.R

Section 68

…ecessary documents to the Ld. CIT(A) but has failed to obtain any acknowledgment and as such the assessee has not been provided with an opportunity of being heard and relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Tek Ram vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 133/ (2014) 44 taxmann.com 367 (SC). The Ld. A.R. for the assessee also moved an application for leading additional evidence viz. valuation of equity shares, remittance of share application money etc. running into 20 pages. 7. Bare perusal of the assessment order and impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that the documents relied upo…

Narasimha Reddy Kotta, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 575/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 Narasimha Reddy Kotta V Ito,Ward-8(2) Plot No.21 & 22 S. Hyderabad Flat No.302, 2Nd Floor Lahari Residency Shobana Colony West Maredpally Secunderabad-500 026

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR

Section 133(6)

…is required to be annulled and appeal of the assessee is to be allowed . The ld. AR, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78, Anis Ahmad & sons vs CIT 297 ITR 441(SC), Tek Ram vs CIT 357 ITR 133(SC),, DCIT vs. Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360(Guj.HC), Addl.CIT vs. Bahri Brothers(P) Ltd. 154 ITR 244(Patna.HC), Khandelwal constructions vs. CIT 227 ITR 900 (Gauhati HC) and CIT vs. Text Hundred India(P) Ltd. (Del.HC) decisions in support of the case. 7. Further Ld.AR for the assessee had drawn our attention to the written submission filed by the…

Axa France Vie, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 439/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 194DSection 201(1)Section 234ASection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19] AXA France Vie, Assistant Commissioner of Income 5th Floor, Office Tower, Tax, District Centre, Vs Circle Int. Taxation-1(1)(1), Saket, Select City Walk, Plot New Delhi No.A-3, New Delhi-110017 PAN-AAPCA9799J Assessee Revenue Stay Application No.112/Del/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.439/DEL/2022) [Assessment Year: 2018-19] AXA France Vie, Assistant Commissioner of Income 5th Floor, Office Tower, Tax, District Centre, Vs Circle Int. Taxat…

Pawan Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(2), New Delhi

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7809/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144Section 148Section 69A

…dduced for wrong reasons being opposed to the facts of the case and law including judicial pronouncement therefore same may kindly be set aside. Reliance is placed on the following:- a) ITA/140/DEL/2018 AY 2009-10 Dharampal Tyagi Vs. ITO, Meerut b) Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (Hon'ble P&H High Court) c) Dwarka Prasad 63 ITD 1 (Pat) (TM) Ganibhai Wahabbhai 232 ITR 900 MP d) Sri Shankar Khandasari Sugar Mills Vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 669(Karnataka HC) 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of principle of natural justice appellant prays th…

Bansal Rice Traders, Sangrur vs. ITO-Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148

…de the appeal: 1. Bank Account Statement. 2. Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account 3. Cash Book 4. Acknowledgment Slip 5. Computation Sheet 6. Rectified form 26AS Reliance was placed on the following case laws : • Tek Ram (Dead) through LRs Vs. CIT 357 ITR 133 (SC) • CIT Vs. Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H) • UOP LLC Vs. ADIT, ITAT, Delhi “F” Bench 108 ITD 186 • CIT Vs. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai 232 ITR 900 (MP) • Electra (Jaipur)(P) Ltd. Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 26 ITD 236 (Del) • CIT vs. Parimal Kanti Chanda 291 ITR 77 (Gauhati) • Hingora Industries Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2109/Ahd/2008 (A…

The Institution of Civil Engineers Society, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Exemptions, C-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1412/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 17

…ecting Assistant [1984] 150 ITR 696 (P&H) • Mukesh Jesangbhai Patel Vs. ITO, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 389 (Gujarat) • M/s Bhagwati Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO ITAT, Amritsar Tribunal (Third Member) [2019] 57 CCH 0274 • Tek Ram (Dead Through Lrs.) Vs. CIT [2013] 357 ITR 133 (SC) 9. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee furnished a chart first time before the ITAT and the same was not available to the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A)for their consideration, therefore, it should not be admitted at this stage…

Kuldeep, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6166/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantita.No.6166/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2011-2012

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: -None-

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Kuldeep, Delhi. Tax vs., Virgin Securities and Credits P. Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 396 held that “when additional evidences are necessary and crucial for disposal of the appeals, the same should have been admitted”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tekram 262 CTR 118 held that “additional evidences be admitted being relevant and require to be looked into.” In the light of the above decisions, it is clear that the additional evidences filed by assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) were relevant and necessary for disposal of the appeal to explain the source of the cash deposit, therefore, the same should be admitted b…

Versatile Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3031/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kantm/S. Versatile Vinimay Income Tax Officer Private Ltd. Vs. Ward-5(4), Kolkata. 1705, 4Th Floor Onkar Bhawan Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 Pan –Aaccv 6712F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…d, Ld. DR also suggested that matter may remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram (Dead Trhough LRS.) vs. CIT, 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works vs. CIT, 336 ITR 555 held that additional evidences be admitted as relevant and required to be looked into. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 351 ITR 57 and CIT Vs. Virgin Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. [2011] 332 I…

M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Development P. Ltd., Solan vs. DCIT, Parwanoo

In the result the appeal of the assessee is, hereby allowed and

ITA 652/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 652/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Development P. Ltd., 7, Income Tax, Circle, बनाम Shopping Complex, Sector-1, Parwanoo Parwanoo, Distt. Solan, H.P.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT-DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

…k of the assessee, is totally unjust and against the principles of natural justice and also against the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram as reported in 125 ITR 713 and in the case of Tek Ram as reported in 357 ITR 133 (SC). 5. That the numerous details and documentary evidences in the form of various certificates from Village Panchayat and office of the Mamlatdar, affidavit of Registered Land Valuer and numerous other evidences had been furnished, which confirms that the land in question was more than 10 Kilometers away from the limits of the 'Panaji' and, as…

Anil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1753/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…we find from the details reproduced above that all these additional evidences are relevant to the matter in 7 ITA.Nos.1752 & 1753/Del./2017 Shri Anil Bhalla, New Delhi. issue and goes to the root of the matter. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tekram 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 considering the additional evidences to be relevant and required to be looked into directed for admission of the additional evidences. In the present case, considering the history of the assessee and group cases and that additional evidences are relevant to the m…

Anil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1752/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri C.S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

Aamantaran Vtravel Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5602/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.D. Agarwal & Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: And Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.5602/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Aamantaran Travel The DCIT, Company Pvt. Ltd., 327, 1st vs. Circle-1(1), Floor, Udyog Vihar Phase- New Delhi. IV, Gurgaon (NCR), Haryana PIN 122 016 PAN AALCA8523C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate For Assessee : And Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Sridhar Dora, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2018 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by Assessee…

Annapurna Texturisers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3791/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm& Hon’Ble Sh.N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3791/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri VimanlPunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, DR

…purchase of shares, it is necessary to take on record the evidences, which the assessee has now produced, failing which there will be substantial failure of justice and therefore while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram 262 CTR 118, we allow the application moved by the assessee for admitting the additional evidences. Since, we have admitted the additional evidences as mentioned in detail in the above portion of our order, which requires necessary verification. Therefore, considering the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit 21 I.T.A. No. 379…

Dharampal Tyagi, Meerut Cantt vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Meerut

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

ITA 140/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Sh. Amresh Vashisht, C.AFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 142(1)Section 148

…ese documents were essential for just decision in the matter. The Ld.CIT(A) therefore instead of rejecting these additional evidences should have admitted the additional evidences for deciding the appeal on merits. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tek Ram 262 CTR 118 and Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555, admitted the additional evidences as being relevant and required to be looked into. 6.1. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) should have admitted these additional evidences and decided the appeal of assessee on merits. In this view of the ma…

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

…al measures. We are of the considered view that documents filed by the appellant in the P/B at serial No. 3 to 7 and 9 have got direct bearing on the addition of Rs.99,00,000/- made by the AO as unexplained income. In Tek Ram (Dead) Through LRS v. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 133 (SC), the additional evidences were first time produced before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which were admitted by the Supreme Court stating that the additional documents are of some relevance on the issue. The matter was set aside to the High Court to decide afresh. If evidence produced by the assessee is genuine, then assessee should not be denie…