← All Phrases

“rule 46A”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A2,967 judgments

The decision most relied on for rule 46A is CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd. (299 ITR 268), cited in 426 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rule 46A

CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.
299 ITR 268 · 2008 · High Court
426
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer cannot add share capital or share premium amounts if the assessee provides the identity and creditworthiness of the subscriber and establishes the genuineness of the transaction. The court may admit additional evidence under Rule 46A, such as the PAN identity of the creditor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional 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. Nikunj Eximp
216 Taxmann.com 171 · 2013 · High Court
103
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must consider additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) under Rule 46A and cannot reject it without proper appreciation of the facts, especially when the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing it earlier.

CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits (P) Ltd.
332 ITR 396 · 2011 · High Court
85
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) must admit additional evidence if it is crucial for the proper disposal of the appeal, ensuring substantial justice to the appellant.

CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd.
245 CTR 397 · 2011 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The production of fresh evidence at the appellate stage before the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly governed by the conditions and procedures laid down in Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury
288 ITR 179 · 2007 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The appellate authority must follow Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence, which includes recording reasons for admission and providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify or refute the evidence. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing rule 46A

C.N.Babu, Ramanagaram vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Ramanagara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 356/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. C. N. Babu, Vs. Ito, Prop: Hotel Chirag, Ward – 1, B. M. Road, Bidadi, Ramanagara. Ramanagaram Taluk – 562 109. Pan : Ajxpb 4497 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2018 Of Cit(A) – 3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Ground Nos.1, 11 & 12 Raised By The Assessee Are General In Nature & Does Not Require Any Adjudication. Ground No.2 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. R. Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 46ASection 68

valid reason as to why this was not filed before the AO. The CIT(A) was of the view that in terms of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’) certain conditions had to be satisfied for filing additional evidence. Since the assessee

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2012/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

were taken for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers violation of rule 46A ... extensive powers violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records

Sheth Creators P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1858/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

were taken for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers violation of rule 46A ... extensive powers violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records

Sheth Creators Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Cir-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1857/MUM/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

were taken for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers violation of rule 46A ... extensive powers violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3696/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

were taken for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers violation of rule 46A ... extensive powers violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records

Sheth Creators Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the In the result, the appeals of the assessee and appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2620/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), Upper Basement, Site Office, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vasant Oasis, Cts No. 345A/1 To Vs. Nariman Point, 3, 345A 5, Makwana Road, Mumbai-400021. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), M/S Sheth Creators Private Limited, Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, 1203 & 1204 Hallmark Business Air India Building, Vs. Plaza, 12Th Floor, Sant Dyaneshwar Nariman Point, Marg, Kala-Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aapcs 2976 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sheth Creators Private Limited, Dy. Cit, Central Circle-4(2), 101-A & 1202, 1St & 12Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Hallamark Business Plaza, Near Vs. Nariman Point, Gurunanak Hospital, Sant Mumbai-400021. Dyaneshwar Marg, Kalanagar

were taken for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no for personal trips by the assessee. Thus there is no violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers violation of rule 46A ... extensive powers violation of rule 46A by the Id CIT(A) as he has co extensive powers to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records and examine the same in order to decide the to call for the records

ACIT Cir 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. L & T Ltd ( Datar Switch Gear Ltd Merged ), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3806/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)

assessee during the appellate proceedings without granting any opportunity to the AO make his comments, in clear violation of the provisions of Rule 46A of the IT Rules 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was not correct

Smt.Vani Shree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 383/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Vani Shree, No. 49, 3Rd Cross, The Income-Tax Marappa Thota, Officer, J.C. Nagar, Ward 6 (2)(4), Bangalore – 560 006. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Gayps9756K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-6, Bangalore For A.Y. 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Herself To Be Liable To Be Assessed To Total Income Of Rs.2,16,39,499/- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravi shankar
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

circumstances of the case. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in not admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7163/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Paraswanath and Karishma, however same were not admitted by not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statement Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statements given ... material on record relevant material on record including written submission of the including written submission of the assessee. As per rule 46 . As per rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, 1962, in following circumstances, additional evi ditional evidence produced by the assessee c dence produced by the assessee

Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7162/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Paraswanath and Karishma, however same were not admitted by not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statement Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statements given ... material on record relevant material on record including written submission of the including written submission of the assessee. As per rule 46 . As per rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, 1962, in following circumstances, additional evi ditional evidence produced by the assessee c dence produced by the assessee

Sarvesh Mercantile P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed partly for statistical allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4634/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit Central Circle-2(4), 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion, 259, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Dcit Cc-2(1), 2Nd Floor, Johri Mansion, 259, 9Th Floor, New Pratiksha Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaics 1651 C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Shukla, CIT-DR
Section 68

Paraswanath and Karishma, however same were not admitted by not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) in terms of CIT(A) in terms of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statement Ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction statements given ... material on record relevant material on record including written submission of the including written submission of the assessee. As per rule 46 . As per rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, 1962, in following circumstances, additional evi ditional evidence produced by the assessee c dence produced by the assessee

M/S. Patel Goods Carriers Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 426/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.T.Srinivasa Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Suresh Rao, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 2Section 44A

hearing fixed on 05.05.2022. 6. The learned assessing officer was not justified in declining to entertain the appellant's request for invoking Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules 1962, to establish the genuine nature of the expenditure incurred by the appellant, on a mistaken appreciation of the facts ... circumstances of case and the issues involved. 7. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated that the appellant was justified in invoking Rule 46A since the original proceedings had been concluded unrepresented and that the necessity to seek one more opportunity to produce the documentary evidences before the learned assessing

ITO 25 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6805/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 6805 /Mum/2018 (A.Y: 2012-13 ) Ito- 25(3)(3) Vs. Rahul Kantilal Shah Room No. 606, 6Th Floor 701, Saroj Bldg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Sardar Vallabhbhai Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Patel Road, Mumbai -400051. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400056. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaips0543C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.T.Shankar.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed The By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-77, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.T.Shankar.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Anuj Kishnadwala.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 57

Mumbai. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, categorically pointed out that with the object of ensuring that evidence is primarily led before the Assessing Officer, Rule 46A (1) puts fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) any additional evidence, not previously raised ... rule (4) and section 250 of the Act. The relevant part of the said order is as under:- "3 . On a plain reading of rule 46A, it is clear that this rule is intended to put fetters on the right of the appellant to produce before the AAC any evidence

ITO 10 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6239/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – 10(2)(4), Vs. M/S Memphis 2Nd Floor, Room No. Investment & Trading 213, Aayakar Bhavan Co. Ltd Churchgate, 146, Chinar Bldg, Mumbai-400020. Sher-E-Punjab Society, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6735B Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.Adv & Shri.Shailesh Gupta.Ar Revenue By : Shri.T. Shankar. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Memphis Investment & Trading Co. Ltd, Mumbai. 1. 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deciding That The Assessee Had Discharged Its Onus Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Transactions." 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Delhi High Court In The Case Of Mis. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. Wherein The Hon'Ble High Court Has Made Observation With Respect To Creditworthiness 3. The Appellant Prays That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Or Add A New Ground Which May Be Necessary.

For Appellant: Shri.Salil Aggarwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri.T. Shankar. CIT.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

dated 16.05.2019. The CIT(A) has observed that there are three parts of the A.O.s comments on remand report first on the provisions of Rule 46A of the I T Rules and that the additional evidences should not be accepted. The CIT(A) has dealt on the admission of additional

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 348/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

addition of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkataramana without giving opportunity to the AO as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 7.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee received Rs.1 crore vide cheque No.693548 dated 23.6.2005 drawn of Corporation ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) given a relief after admitting the additional evidence without giving opportunity to AO as required under Rule 46A of the Act. According to Ld. D.R., the additions to be sustained. 7.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the advance received

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 204/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

addition of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkataramana without giving opportunity to the AO as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 7.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee received Rs.1 crore vide cheque No.693548 dated 23.6.2005 drawn of Corporation ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) given a relief after admitting the additional evidence without giving opportunity to AO as required under Rule 46A of the Act. According to Ld. D.R., the additions to be sustained. 7.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the advance received

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 203/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

addition of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkataramana without giving opportunity to the AO as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 7.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee received Rs.1 crore vide cheque No.693548 dated 23.6.2005 drawn of Corporation ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) given a relief after admitting the additional evidence without giving opportunity to AO as required under Rule 46A of the Act. According to Ld. D.R., the additions to be sustained. 7.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the advance received

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 109/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

addition of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkataramana without giving opportunity to the AO as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 7.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee received Rs.1 crore vide cheque No.693548 dated 23.6.2005 drawn of Corporation ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) given a relief after admitting the additional evidence without giving opportunity to AO as required under Rule 46A of the Act. According to Ld. D.R., the additions to be sustained. 7.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the advance received

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 108/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

addition of Rs.68 lakhs in respect of unproved loans in the name of Venkataramana without giving opportunity to the AO as required under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. 7.1 Facts of the case are that the assessee received Rs.1 crore vide cheque No.693548 dated 23.6.2005 drawn of Corporation ... submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) given a relief after admitting the additional evidence without giving opportunity to AO as required under Rule 46A of the Act. According to Ld. D.R., the additions to be sustained. 7.3 The Ld. A.R. submitted that out of the advance received

India Medtronic Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10 (1)91), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.54 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7935/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 7935/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) India Medtronic Private Limited, 1241, Solitaire Corporate Park, Bldg.No.12, 4Th Floor, Andheri-Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan:Aaaci-4227-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-10(1)(1), Room No.209, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A With Shri Nikhil Tiwari ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Kamath, Cit-Dr With S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Order Dated 25/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. Vora, C.A with Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamath, CIT-DR with S/Shri Satya Pinisetty/R.A.Dhyani
Section 143(3)

expenditure,that the assessee had filed additional evidences before the FAA,that the FAA did not admit the evidences referring to the provisions of Rule 46A of the Rules, that he upheld the order of the TPO,that for the AY.2010-11 the assessee had filed objections before the DRP,that