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.

44

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 115BBESection 144Section 250Section 143(2)Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 35adsection 35asection 142aadmission of additional evidencesection 151apanchnamaon-moneylong term capital gainsfaceless assessmentsection 35section 37(1)

Judgments citing Tek Ram v. CIT

Iqroop Singh Sekhon, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Chandigarh

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

ITA 258/CHANDI/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Iqroop Singh SekhonFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 250(6)

…ot available with the assessee at the time of assessment because of the serious illness. 7. Having gone through the additional evidences, we find that the evidences goes to the root cause of the dispute. Relying on the judgments in the case of Tek Ram Vs CIT 262 CTR 118(Supreme Court) and Mukta Metal Works 336 ITR 555 (P&H), the additional evidences are being admitted. 8. The Ld. DR argued that based on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Tolla Ram Hasso Mal 153 Taxmann 532(M.P) (2006), and also on the rationale in the case of Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 928/2001 (Delhi Hig…

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)

…idered view that the examination by the AO of the valuation report filed by the assessee before us would resolve the contentious issue regarding the consideration/rent of Rs.38,36,520/- being adequate or inadequate. In Tek Ram (Dead) Through LRS v. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 133 (SC), the additional evidences were first time produced before the Supreme Court, which were admitted by it stating that the additional documents are of some relevance on the issue. The matter was set aside to the High Court to decide afresh. In the instant case, we find that the valuation report filed by the assessee is quite relevant for the pu…

Mohinder Rai, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical

ITA 4110/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaimohinder Rai Acit Prop. M/S Outclass Apparels, Circle- 33(1), 23/56, Ground Floor, New Delhi Vs. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi Pan : Aaarp2475E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mohinder Rai ACIT Prop. M/s Outclass Apparels, Circle- 33(1), 23/56, Ground Floor, New Delhi Vs. Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi PAN : AAARP2475E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 22.05.2017 Date of pronouncement : 25.05.2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. The present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 29.12.2013 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-XIX, New Delhi for a…

M/S. Piyush Buildwell India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 2735/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh:A.Y. 2007-08 M/S Piyush Buildwell India Ltd., Vs. Dcit Central Circle-1, A-16.B-1,Mohan Co-Op., Industrial Faridabad. Estate, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aadcp 7767 M ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : Shri A.K. Mishra Fca Respondent By : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28-02-2016 Date Of Order : 15-03-2016. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Mishra FCAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 153A

…books of accounts which were produced before her during the course of hearing and the same should have been considered in the view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (P&H) and in the case of Sh. Tek Ram Vs CIT as reported in 357 ITR 133 (SC). 4. That the learned CIT (A) have erred not appreciating the facts the addition of Rs.3, 93, 972/ - was made by the A.O. without observing principle of natural justice. 5. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.” 5. We have considered the submissions of both th…