← All Phrases

“admission of additional evidence”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A1,576 judgments

The decision most relied on for admission of additional evidence is CBI v. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410), cited in 442 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on admission of additional evidence

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

Shri Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT
174 Taxmann 466 · 2008 · High Court
225
citing judgments

Liability cannot be fastened solely on the basis of a self-incriminating sworn statement made during a search, as such statements are not conclusive and require corroborative evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

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).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court
120
citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal
64 Taxmann.com 107 · 2015 · High Court
113
citing judgments

An addition of an unexplained cash credit based solely on an assessee's retracted admission made during a search and seizure operation is not justified, especially if the assessee later provides verifiable explanations.

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram
282 ITR 259 · 2006 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Seized loose sheets or unsigned documents discovered during a search operation possess admissible evidentiary value and can form the basis for income additions if corroborated by external evidence, such as matching payments, business records, or corroborative statements.

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.
351 ITR 57 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence, even if filed by a party, when it deems it necessary for proper adjudication and to achieve substantial justice. This power can be exercised in the interest of justice.

Judgments citing admission of additional evidence

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2254/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234DSection 270ASection 90(2)

assessee before the ld. DRP. The assessee made the following submissions before the ld. DRP:- 7.1.1. The assessee has an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 4(3)(b) of the Income-tax(Disputes Resolution Panel) Rules 2009, on 30.12.2021 wherein the assessee has submitted that United Arab

M/S Alcon Laboratories India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 3376/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

year 2016-17. AO specifically raised a query in relation to expenses incurred on doctors (notice enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 65-67) and Appellant filed details/ information in response to such notice/query (submission enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission ... accepted the claim of the assessee and did not make any disallowance in the assessment order (enclosed as Annexure 7 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 78-86). This is because even if criteria as laid down in CBDT circular as also MCI regulation (as now affirmed

Alcon Laboratories (India0 Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in IT(TP)A No

ITA 2889/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.2889/Bang/2017 It(Tp)A No.3376/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)

year 2016-17. AO specifically raised a query in relation to expenses incurred on doctors (notice enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 65-67) and Appellant filed details/ information in response to such notice/query (submission enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission ... accepted the claim of the assessee and did not make any disallowance in the assessment order (enclosed as Annexure 7 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 78-86). This is because even if criteria as laid down in CBDT circular as also MCI regulation (as now affirmed

M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

additional evidence towards details of the advances written off (pages 88-139 of the additional evidence compilation (Vol II)). The ld.AR prayed for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal as these evidences when considered would substantiate the claim of the assessee. The additional evidences now produced go the root

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu), Bangalore vs. M/S Dell International Services India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 844/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 143(2)Section 92C

additional evidence towards details of the advances written off (pages 88-139 of the additional evidence compilation (Vol II)). The ld.AR prayed for admission of additional evidences before the Tribunal as these evidences when considered would substantiate the claim of the assessee. The additional evidences now produced go the root

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. ACIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2197/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

same as unexplained credit. Ld. AR of the assesse, at the time of hearing, filed petition along with additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished additional evidences in the form of confirmation from the loan creditors. Ld. AR submitted that since these

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. ACIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2196/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

same as unexplained credit. Ld. AR of the assesse, at the time of hearing, filed petition along with additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished additional evidences in the form of confirmation from the loan creditors. Ld. AR submitted that since these

Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2195/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)

same as unexplained credit. Ld. AR of the assesse, at the time of hearing, filed petition along with additional evidences and prayed for admission of additional evidences. Ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished additional evidences in the form of confirmation from the loan creditors. Ld. AR submitted that since these

ITO 26(3)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Vivaan Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside whole issue back to the file of the ld

ITA 1063/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Vivaan Corporation The Income Tax Officer 505, 5Th Floor, Ward 26(3)(4) Ackruti Star, Room No.336, Income Tax Opp Ackruti Centre Point, Office, 34D Floor, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Midc, Bandra East, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 051 Andheri-400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalfv4392H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sunil A Umap, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A Umap, DR
Section 143

undisclosed income and added the same to the total income of assessee. 7.1.2 In the remand report, the Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidence, comprising of confirmation of accounts, bank M/s Vivaan Corporation; A.Y. 2015-16 statements etc. stating that several opportunities was afforded during the assessment ... Vivaan Corporation; A.Y. 2015-16 evidences before the AO. It is more relevant when the learned assessing officer has specifically objected to the admission of additional evidence, the learned CIT – A should have given reasons for admitting the same. The learned CIT – A has failed to do so. 010. Secondly

M/S Bellary Nirmithi Kendra, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2367/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mallaharao, Advocate
Section 37Section 40Section 43B

filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed. 5. On merits, the Ld.AR filed application under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It is submitted that, these documents could not be produced during the assessment proceedings nor could be filed before the Ld.CIT(A), since ... filed, the issue may be considered in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 5.1 The Ld.DR though did not support the admission of additional evidences, alternatively prayed that in the event the additional evidences are admitted, the same may be remanded for necessary verification. 5.2 We have considered

M/S Bellary Nirmithi Kendra, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2366/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mallaharao, Advocate
Section 37Section 40Section 43B

filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed. 5. On merits, the Ld.AR filed application under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It is submitted that, these documents could not be produced during the assessment proceedings nor could be filed before the Ld.CIT(A), since ... filed, the issue may be considered in accordance with law in the interest of justice. 5.1 The Ld.DR though did not support the admission of additional evidences, alternatively prayed that in the event the additional evidences are admitted, the same may be remanded for necessary verification. 5.2 We have considered

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Snowshine Realtors Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 49 13. One of the issues to be considered is whether the admission of additional evidence by assessee at the directions of CIT(A) required to be sent to Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(1). It is not assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 49 13. One of the issues to be considered is whether the admission of additional evidence by assessee at the directions of CIT(A) required to be sent to Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(1). It is not assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1-(4), Bengaluru vs. M/S Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept
Section 147

Bangalore M/s. Snowshine Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 33 of 49 13. One of the issues to be considered is whether the admission of additional evidence by assessee at the directions of CIT(A) required to be sent to Assessing Officer under Rule 46A(1). It is not assessee

Shri. Virupaxappa Siddappa Udnur, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250

issue already on record and these additional evidences may be admitted in the interest of justice. 5. The Ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of additional evidences and submitted that assessee is very negligent in producing these documents before the lower authorities and these documents shall not be admitted

Jigana, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 535/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 115BSection 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69A

source of deposit. Further, he submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) along with application for admission of additional evidence, which are listed before us in paper book page Nos.95 to 102, which were not properly considered by the Ld. CIT(A). Jigana, Bangalore

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Astrazenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

year 2016-17. AO specifically raised a query in relation to expenses incurred on doctors (notice enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 65-67) and Appellant filed details/ information in response to such notice/query (submission enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission ... accepted the claim of the assessee and did not make any disallowance in the assessment order (enclosed as Annexure 7 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 78-86). This is because even if criteria as laid down in CBDT circular as also MCI regulation (as now affirmed

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst. C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 170/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.82/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Income-Tax, Large Tax Payers Unit V. Manyata Embassy Business, (Ltu) Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 045. Pan : Aabca1722B. (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Tp)A No.170/Bang/2015 : Asst.Year 2010-2011 M/S.Astrazeneca Pharma India The Assistant Commissioner Limited, Ni 12Th Floor, Of Income-Tax, Large Tax V. Manyata Embassy Business, Payers Unit (Ltu) Bengaluru. Rachenahalli, Outer Ring Road Bangalore – 560 045. (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Sri.Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2022 Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : These Cross Appeals Are Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2010- 2011. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Pharmaceutical Products. It Also Undertakes Co- Ordination Of Clinical Trial Services. For The Assessment Year 2010-2011, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Taxable

For Appellant: Sri.Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)Section 92C

year 2016-17. AO specifically raised a query in relation to expenses incurred on doctors (notice enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 65-67) and Appellant filed details/ information in response to such notice/query (submission enclosed as Annexure 6 to application for admission ... accepted the claim of the assessee and did not make any disallowance in the assessment order (enclosed as Annexure 7 to application for admission of additional evidences @ Pg 78-86). This is because even if criteria as laid down in CBDT circular as also MCI regulation (as now affirmed

ITO 12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ktg Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4336/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4336/मुं/2019(िन.व. 2011-12) Ito-12 (3) (1), Room No.147A, 1St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 बनाम Vs. M/S. Ktg Developers Pvt. Ltd., Link Komal Co-Op Gh Society, Flat No.3, Plot No.81-A, Linking Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400 054 Pan: Aacck-9929-R ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Singh सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejinder Pal SinghFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh
Section 68

Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 2. The Revenue in appeal has assailed the findings of CIT(A) on followingfour grounds: (i) Admission of additional evidence without following the provisions of Rule46A(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short ‘the Rules’) (ii) Deleting addition of Rs.93.00 lacs ... sought remand report on the additional evidences filed by the assesse. The Assessing Officer furnished remand report dated 17/10/2017 raising preliminary objections on admission of additional evidences. The CIT(A) ignoring the same admitted the additional evidences and decided the appeal in 3 favour of the assessee. The Assessing Officer

Sudhir S. Jhunjhunwala (Prop M.S, Sumadhi Investments), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6543/MUM/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshआअसुं.6520/म ुं/2010 (धि.ि. 2008-09) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 11, Room No. 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Annexe Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Shri. Sudhir S Jhunjhunwala Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Meghna Apts., Sv Road, Santacruz West Mumbai-54 Pan No. Aafpj7148H आअसुं.6543/म ुं/2010 (धि.ि. 2008-09) ..... अपीलाथी /Appellant Shri. Sudhir S Jhunjhunwala Flat No. 41/42, 4Th Floor, Meghna Apts., Sv Road, Santacruz West Mumbai-54 Pan No. Aafpj7148H बिाम Vs. ..... प्रधििादी/Respondent Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 11, Old Cgo Annexe Bldg., Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash R. Mane, CIT DR
Section 132Section 144

Revenue in appeal as raised as many as five grounds. The only issue raised in the appeal by the Revenue is admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) ITA NO.6520 /MUM/2010 & 6543/MUM/2010 (A.Y.2008-09) in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the rules ... remand report. Thus, it is evident from records that an opportunity was granted to the Assessing Officer to file objections to the admissibility of additional evidences filed by the assessee at First Appellate stage. No objection whatsoever was raised by the Assessing Officer. Now, the Assessing Officer cannot raise objection