1. CIT v. B. Nagendra Baliga

363 ITR 410High Court2014#3748 most cited

What is 1. CIT v. B. Nagendra Baliga authority for?

In block assessments, the Assessing Officer cannot determine undisclosed income by extrapolating existing documents. There is no scope for such extrapolation.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B. Nagendra Baliga · 363 ITR 410 · block assessment · undisclosed income · extrapolation of documents · section 153A · section 153C · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementsection 158bb(1)section 158bbsection 131(1a)section 153c(1)section 292bsection 34admission of additional evidenceblock periodsection 132(1)section 153bsection 158b

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. B. Nagendra Baliga

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 112/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.112/SRT/2021 (AY 2012-13) (Hearing in Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner of DMC Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-tax, Central Circle-3, 9th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 PAN No. AADCD 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shr…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat vs. Kush Corporation, Surat

In the result, grounds of cross objection raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Physical hearing) A.C.I.T., Kush Corporation, Central Circle-1, Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. Vs. Surat. No. 30, Block No. 111, Palanpor, Surat. PAN No. AALFK 7948 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee C.O. No. 01/Srt/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kush Corporation, A.C.I.T., Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. No.…

M/S. Sairung Developers & Promoters Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Pune

ITA 543/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 543/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133Section 143(3)

…and presumptions do not deserve to be sustained in light of stricter interpretation of section 292C as per Commissioner V/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. 2018(9) SCC page 1 (SC)(FB), 379 ITR 160 (Bom.), Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. V/s DCIT, B. Nagendra Belgia Vs DCIT. 363 ITR 410 (Kar.) & (2013) 215 Taxman 659) (Guj.) M/s. Standard Tea Processing Co.Ltd. This is indeed coupled with the fact that even the CBDT’s twin circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18.02.2014 also re-iterate that even admissions and confessions made during the course of search and survey; as the case may be, do not carry any significance in absence of actua…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune vs. M/S. Sairung Developers and Promoters Pvt.Ltd, Pune

ITA 256/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 543/Pun/2020 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 133Section 143(3)

…and presumptions do not deserve to be sustained in light of stricter interpretation of section 292C as per Commissioner V/s. Dilip Kumar & Co. 2018(9) SCC page 1 (SC)(FB), 379 ITR 160 (Bom.), Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. V/s DCIT, B. Nagendra Belgia Vs DCIT. 363 ITR 410 (Kar.) & (2013) 215 Taxman 659) (Guj.) M/s. Standard Tea Processing Co.Ltd. This is indeed coupled with the fact that even the CBDT’s twin circulars dated 10.03.2003 and 18.02.2014 also re-iterate that even admissions and confessions made during the course of search and survey; as the case may be, do not carry any significance in absence of actua…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 953/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 952/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

DCIT, Chennai vs. A.Sivasankar, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 951/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 620/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 619/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 618/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

A.Sivashankar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 617/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.617 To 620/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12 Mr.A.Sivashankar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street, Of Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal, Central Circle-Iii(1), Chennai. Chennai. [Pan: Askps 6119 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ered into with other buyers. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of B.Nagendra Baliga reported in 363 ITR 410, deleted the addition made by the AO by holding that there is no scope for the AO to determine undisclosed income by extrapolation of documents in block assessment. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) opined that the AO is erred in extrapolating sale price of plots from Rs.400/- to Rs.1,458/- per sq.ft. and made additions towards differential sale consi…

M/S Ananda Social & Educational Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2542/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri P.K.Gadale

For Appellant: Smt Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V Shinde, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 153A

…at there was suppression of fees. On the contrary, the assessee placed its reliance on the following case laws:- (a) CIT vs. Balaji Educational and charitable public Trust (374 ITR 274) 36 (ITA Nos.2542-2548 & 2654-2660(B)/2017 (b) CIT vs. B.Nagendra Baliga (363 ITR 410) (c) CIT vs. Standard Tea Processing Co Ltd (215 Taxman 659)(Guj). 47. The Ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition with the following observations:- “46. I have carefully considered the findings of the Assessing Officer and also carefully perused the submissions made by the appellant in w…