Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 13 February, 1980

Kanakia Spaces P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai on 31 October, 2018

We have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. But we keep in mind that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as clarified in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanakia Spaces Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 23 April, 2019

We have admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee. But we keep in mind that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as clarified in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Cc-4(1), Mumbai, Mumbai vs Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd, Mumbai on 17 March, 2026

But we keep in mind that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as clarified in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peri (India ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Jt Cit (Osd) Cir -13(1)(2), Mumbai on 5 March, 2021

11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The supporting evidence as filed by the Ld. counsel is nothing but additional evidence. We are of the considered view that admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee on the above ground of appeal by us would facilitate to render substantial justice between the parties. We are aware of the position of law that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as held in the case of Smt. Urmial Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CIT (Punj) 96, 98.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh, Mumbai vs Ito 19(3)(2), Kalyan on 23 May, 2018

If evidence produced by the assessee is genuine, then assessee should not be denied opportunity of it being produced for the first time before the appellate authority In view of the above facts and position of law, we admit the additional evidence filed by the appellant. However, we also keep in mind that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be Ismail Sahabjan Shaikh 5 ITA No. 218/Mum/2016 adduced, the interest of justice demands that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence as held in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhari v. Addl.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaypanexports P.Ltd Formlery Known As ... vs Ito-6(2)(4), Mumbai on 19 September, 2018

We are of the considered view that the details enclosed by the appellant in its application for additional evidence under Rule 29 are relevant materials in adjudicating the contentious issue in the present case. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. However, as rightly pointed out in the decision in Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98 that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sushil Suresh Raut, Raigad vs Ito Wd 3 Panvel, Navi Mumbai on 31 January, 2019

7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on records. In the instant case, the addition made by the AO is on the ground that in the sale agreement, there is mention of a hotel situated on the said land and the land is situated on the Mumbai Goa Highway and therefore, it is not an agricultural land. We find that this is not a way to conclude such a finding. In such a situation, we feel that the Mr. Sushil Suresh 4 ITA No. 3101/Mum/2017 additional evidence filed by the assessee before us would go a long way in clarifying the present issue. Therefore, we admit the additional evidence. We also abide by the decision in the case of Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98 that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Line-One Trading Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs Ito - 2(5) Thane, Thane on 30 January, 2019

It is found that the assessee failed to file before the AO certain documents as mentioned at para 8.2 (page 12-13) of the assessment order dated 30.03.2015. We are of the considered view that the additional evidence filed by the assessee would help the AO in arriving at a proper finding. In the interests of justice, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. We also abide by the decision in the case of Smt. Urmila Ratilal v. CIT, (1982) 136 ITR 797, 799 (Guj); Hiralal Devdutt Jagadhri v. Addl. CIT, (1980) 18 CTR (Punj) 96, 98 that where an additional evidence has been allowed to be adduced, the interests of justice demand that the other side must be given an opportunity to explain or rebut such additional evidence.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1