Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2018 (11) TMI 1491 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        ITAT Delhi Upholds Natural Justice: Cross-Examination Right Essential The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the legal ground of denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, quashing the ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          ITAT Delhi Upholds Natural Justice: Cross-Examination Right Essential

                          The ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the legal ground of denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, quashing the assessment order. The court emphasized the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings, citing the serious flaw in not allowing cross-examination, which adversely affected the assessee. The addition of long term capital gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act was set aside due to the violation of natural justice principles, as the AO and CIT (A) based their decisions on statements without granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals involved.




                          Issues:
                          1. Addition of long term capital gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
                          2. Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

                          Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Addition of long term capital gain under section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
                          The case involved an appeal filed by the assessee against the addition of Rs. 1,39,32,231 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act related to long term capital gain on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) raised concerns regarding the genuineness of the transaction, suspecting it to be a sham transaction for obtaining bogus long term capital gains. The AO relied on statements of individuals involved in managing various companies, acting as accommodation entry providers. The AO made the addition based on the test of human probabilities. The assessee contended that the AO violated principles of natural justice by not providing copies of the statements or granting an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were relied upon. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision, leading to the appeal before the ITAT Delhi.

                          Analysis of Issue 1:
                          The ITAT Delhi observed that the AO and CIT (A) based their decisions on statements recorded by the Investigation Department without granting the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals. The failure to provide material evidence and the denial of cross-examination amounted to a violation of natural justice principles. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries versus CCE, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal on legal grounds, quashing the assessment order due to the serious flaw in not allowing cross-examination, which affected the assessee adversely. The ITAT Delhi set aside the addition made by the AO, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in such proceedings.

                          Issue 2: Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses:
                          The second major issue in the case was the denial of the assessee's right to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition made by the AO. The assessee argued that the denial of this opportunity violated principles of natural justice and impacted the assessment process adversely. The ITAT Delhi found merit in this argument and allowed the appeal on the legal ground raised by the assessee regarding the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

                          Analysis of Issue 2:
                          The ITAT Delhi highlighted the gross violation of principles of natural justice in denying the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses, as it undermined the fairness and integrity of the assessment process. By citing the Andaman Timber Industries case, the ITAT Delhi emphasized the significance of allowing cross-examination when statements of witnesses are pivotal in making decisions that impact the assessee. This denial was considered a serious flaw leading to the nullity of the assessment order. Consequently, the ITAT Delhi set aside the assessment order, recognizing the adverse impact on the assessee due to the denial of this fundamental right.

                          In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the legal ground of denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, thereby quashing the assessment order and emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in tax proceedings.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found