Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

256 ITR 536High Court2012#1455 most cited

What is Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The High Court found no substantial question of law where income estimation, particularly of sales, was based on comprehensive evidence gathered during a survey, including statements, documents, and past history, even when a specific opportunity for cross-examination was not provided.

78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT · RameshwarLal Mali v. CIT · 256 ITR 536 · cross-examination opportunity · survey findings · statements recorded during survey · estimation of sales · sufficiency of evidence · natural justice principles · substantial question of law · income tax assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 131Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

principal chief commissioner of income-taxpeak credit theorythird party informationfaceless assessment schemesection 120borrowed satisfactionsection 2(14)section 151aorder under section 148a(d)source of sourceon-moneysection 69b

Judgments citing Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6525/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\n\nITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025\n Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020\n\nBharat Solanki,\n9th floor, Flat No. 903,\nDarshan Height, Ram Mandir\nChirabzar,\nMumbai-400 002.\nVs.\nDCIT Central Circle-4(2),\nKautilya Bhavan, C-41-43,\nAvenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,\nG Block BKC, Gilban Area,\nBandra Kurla Complex, Bandra\nEast,\nMumbai-400051.\n\nPAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P\nAppellant\nRespondent\n\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\n\n: Mr. Bharat Kum…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025\n Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020\nBharat Solanki,\n9th floor, Flat No. 903,\nDarshan Height, Ram Mandir\nChirabzar,\nMumbai-400 002.\nVs.\nDCIT Central Circle-4(2),\nKautilya Bhavan, C-41-43,\nAvenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,\nG Block BKC, Gilban Area,\nBandra Kurla Complex, Bandra\nEast,\nMumbai-400051.\nPAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P\nAppellant\nRespondent\nAssessee by\n: Mr. Bharat Kumar\nRevenue by\n: Mr.…

BHARAT SOLANKI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)\nAND\nSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025\n Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020\nBharat Solanki,\n9th floor, Flat No. 903,\nDarshan Height, Ram Mandir\nChirabzar,\nMumbai-400 002.\nVs.\nDCIT Central Circle-4(2),\nKautilya Bhavan, C-41-43,\nAvenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan,\nG Block BKC, Gilban Area,\nBandra Kurla Complex, Bandra\nEast,\nMumbai-400051.\nPAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P\nAppellant\nRespondent\nAssessee by\n:\nMr. Bharat Kumar\nRevenue by\n:\nMr…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…mmu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also\nHon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should\nnot be given.\nComing to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nRameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the Id. AO in support of not\nproviding opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case\nas seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite\ndifferent. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees /\nsalesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…mmu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also\nHon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should\nnot be given.\nComing to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nRameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the Id. AO in support of not\nproviding opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case\nas seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite\ndifferent. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees /\nsalesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…mmu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also\nHon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should\nnot be given.\nComing to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nRameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the Id. AO in support of not\nproviding opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case\nas seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite\ndifferent. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees /\nsalesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…mmu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also\nHon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should\nnot be given.\nComing to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nRameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the Id. AO in support of not\nproviding opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case\nas seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite\ndifferent. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees /\nsalesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…mmu & Kashmir Commission of Inquiry Act, 1962 and in this case also\nHon'ble Supreme Court has not observed that right to cross examination should\nnot be given.\nComing to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of\nRameshwarLal Mali Vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 so cited by the Id. AO in support of not\nproviding opportunity of cross examination, on going through the facts of the case\nas seen from the perusal of above cited order, it is noticed that facts are quite\ndifferent. In this cited case, survey was carried out and statement of employees /\nsalesman were recorded and moreover estimation of sale…

LAXMIDHAN TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1428/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011 -12 Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCL7682F Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : February 25th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : May…

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…is entitled to cross examination is\na question which may largely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case (Shyamlal biri\nMerchant Vs UOI 1993 68 ELT 548, Allahabad).\n\n4.4 The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mali V/s CIT 256 ITR 536\n(Raj.) has held that \"There is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose\nstatement were recorded during survey.\"\n\n4.5 In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754\n(Cal.) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that \"Right to cross examination is not necessarily a part o…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 173/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…department to disprove the transaction regarding share application received by the assessee company from paper concerns of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble rajasthan High Court, in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mali V/s CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) wherein it has been held that there is no provision for permitting a cross-examination of the person, whose statement is recorded during survey. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the merits of the case and to support further to that finding ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the followi…

ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUN INTRASTATE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ontains the name and address of the assessee, further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns. (e) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." 1. In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assess…

ITO,WARD-24(1), NEW DELHI vs. SUN INTRASTATE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ontains the name and address of the assessee, further the group has categorically admitted to providing of accommodation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns. (e) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." 1. In CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), it was held that the AO may gather information in any manner he likes, behind the back of the assessee and utilize the same against the assess…

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2. 5. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta) HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swati Bajaj. 6. [2022] 135 taxmann.com 252 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India. 7. Rameshwar Lal Mali vs CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.). 8. Mahendra N. Chatterjee v. Collector of Central Excise. 9. Soman Citi v. JCIT in ITA No. 2960/Mum/2016 10. CIT Vs Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H). 11. Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun v. DCIT, Dehradun on 6th February, 2019 in ITA No. 4881 to 4883/Del/2016 (Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2013-14). 12. [2022] 136 taxman…

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…odation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal& Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he must disclose all such material to the assessee and also allow the cross examination an…

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…odation entries of unsecured loans through various benami concerns.” The AO further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Vasantlal& Co. Vs. CIT 45 ITR 206(SC) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) among others. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that if the entries and material are gathered behind the back of the assessee and if the AO proposes to act on such material as he might have gathered as a result of his private enquiries, he must disclose all such material to the assessee and also allow the cross examination an…

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1618/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

…ugh various benami concerns. various benami concerns. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross ex permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements amination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." were r…

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1616/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

…ugh various benami concerns. various benami concerns. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) has held that "there is no provision for permitting the cross ex permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statements amination of the persons whose statements were recorded during survey." were r…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…the assessee is entiled to cross examination a question which may largely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case (Shyamlal biri Merchant Vs UOI 1993 68 ELT 548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754 (Cal.) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that "Right to cross examination not necessarily a part of reasonable oppor…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…the assessee is entiled to cross examination a question which may largely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case (Shyamlal biri Merchant Vs UOI 1993 68 ELT 548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754 (Cal.) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that "Right to cross examination not necessarily a part of reasonable oppor…

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT (256 ITR 536) — Cited in 78 Judgments | BharatTax