109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

293 ITR 43High Court2007#304 most cited

What is 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Loose papers, uncorroborated documents, or entries in a third-party's records are not sufficient evidence to make an addition to income unless independently corroborated and their contents proved by the writer against the assessee.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S. M. Aggarwal · SMC Share Brokers Ltd. · 293 ITR 43 · loose papers · seized documents · corroboration · addition to income · Section 153A · Section 147 · Section 69A · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 132Section 153ASection 69CSection 153CSection 147Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharessection 115adsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 60section 153a proceedingssection 63onus of proofsection 2(14)(iii)section 158bbsection 269t

Judgments citing 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

RAMESH RAJPAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 46(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6408/DEL/2025[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarramesh Rajpal Vs. Dcit Z-45, Phase 2 Okhal Circle 46(1) Industrial Area, New Civic Centre Delhi 110020 New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahr 4142 Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. R S Singvi, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…1 ITR 36 (Del): Court held that seized documents need not be rejected in toto merely because they originate from a third party; rather, the AO may extract inferences from internal consistency and verifiable facts within such documents.  CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal, 293 ITR 43 (Del): The Court recognized that circumstantial evidence derived from seized records, when supported by collateral facts, can sustain additions even absent direct documentary reference to the specific transaction P a g e | 8 Ramesh Rajpal HUF (AY 1994-95) II. The Undisputed Cheque Entries as Corroborating Circumstance: A fact of paramount signifi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. 28 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…) Pr. CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. 28 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…) Pr. CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. 28 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…) Pr. CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…) Pr. CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…) Pr. CIT vs. Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal iii) 418 ITR 315 (SC) CIT v. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. iv) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE v) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT vi) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited vii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 2.1 It was explained to the AO that transactions undertaken with these parties were duly recorded in the books of accounts of the appellant company, however, these parties while recording the statement has denied having any transaction with the appellant company which itself triggers that the statement recorded are fact…

SEJAL PARESH CHOPRA,MUMBAI MAHARAHSTRA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) ACIT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 7062/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…lely on the basis of pen drive entries deleted as no corroboration or ownership was proved. Shital Dhorda v. ITO (ITAT, 2025) - Uncorroborated pen drive data and statements not tested in cross examination cannot justify addition. CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) - Loose papers by themselves do not constitute evidence unless corroborated. Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (SC 2017) - Entries in third party diaries or digital media cannot be relied upon without independent evidence of transactions. PRAYER In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'…

SEJAL PARESH CHOPRA,MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2) ACIT ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 7061/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…lely on the basis of pen drive entries deleted as no corroboration or ownership was proved. Shital Dhorda v. ITO (ITAT, 2025) - Uncorroborated pen drive data and statements not tested in cross examination cannot justify addition. CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) - Loose papers by themselves do not constitute evidence unless corroborated. Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (SC 2017) - Entries in third party diaries or digital media cannot be relied upon without independent evidence of transactions. PRAYER In view of the above submissions, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'…

VIMALARJUN TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Vimalarjun Trust, Vs. Acit, 2/652, Vikram Khand, Gomti Circle-2, Nagar, Lucknow Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pin: 226010 Pan No. Aabtv7815R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advs. & Shri PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…an addition cannot be made merely on the basis of loose papers or documents found at a third party's premises, unless corroborated by independent evidence linking the assessee. In support, reliance was placed on following citations: a) CIT v. S. M. Aggarwal (293 ITR 43, Delhi HC): Loose papers are not sufficient evidence by themselves unless supported by other material. b) CIT v. Girish Chaudhary (163 Taxman 608, Delhi HC): Notings on loose sheets are not substantive evidence; they require independent corroboration. c) CIT v. P. V. Kalyanasundaram (294 ITR 49, SC): Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of…

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…ven or taken. The appellant strongly urges that no addition is made on such dumb paper. 1.6 The appellant relies on following decisions wherein addition on dumb paper were deleted. a) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (307 ITR 137) (Guj.) b) CIT vs. S. M. Aggrawal (293 ITR 43) Del. HC. c) Jayantilal Patel vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj.) d) S. K. Gupta vs. DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ Del. Trib. 532 e) Atulkumar Jain vs. DCIT (64 TTJ Del. Trib. 786) f) Pooja Bhatt vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib.) g) ITO vs. Shri Rajkumar Birla (ITA No. 934/944/945 / Hyd. / 2012) (ITAT Hyd.) h) ACIT vs. Shri Sharad Chaudhary (ITA No. 933…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…of V.C. Shukla (SC) it was held as under:- ………………… In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) Vs. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) ……. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO - 1999 (39) ITD 183 Delhi – ITAT ………… In CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) it was held that……… In the case of Ushakant N Patel vs CIT (2006) 6 ITJ 312 (Gujrat HC) …………………………. In the case of ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur)…………………….. ITA Nos. 137 & 138/KOL/2025 CO Nos. 25 & 26/KOL/2025 Rajesh Kumar Kedia; A.Y. 2016-17 & 2019-20 On going through the copy of report sent to the assessee I fin…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH KUMAR KEDIA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M Surana &For Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…of V.C. Shukla (SC) it was held as under:- ………………… In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) Vs. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) ……. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO - 1999 (39) ITD 183 Delhi – ITAT ………… In CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) it was held that……… In the case of Ushakant N Patel vs CIT (2006) 6 ITJ 312 (Gujrat HC) …………………………. In the case of ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur)…………………….. ITA Nos. 137 & 138/KOL/2025 CO Nos. 25 & 26/KOL/2025 Rajesh Kumar Kedia; A.Y. 2016-17 & 2019-20 On going through the copy of report sent to the assessee I fin…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…e) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vs ACIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) Jayanti Lal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) Rakesh Goyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna Lal Jhalani 22 TW 551 (ITAT Jaipur) (12) Hissaria Brother Vs. ACIT 22 TW 684 (ITAT Jaipur) (13) DCIT Vs. Countrywide Buildestate Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur I…

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…r to 'A' only and no one else. Before issuing notice u/s 148 did AO enquire from M/s Bright, answer is No. AO thus had no relevant / tangible material. Here it is relevant to take note of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of SM Aggarwal reported in 293 ITR 43(Del) - copy enclosed at pages 418 to 423 of PB. In this case it is held by High Court as under: "It is well-settled that the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is the writer thereof. So, unless and until the contents of the document are proved against a person, the possession of the document…

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

…r to 'A' only and no one else. Before issuing notice u/s 148 did AO enquire from M/s Bright, answer is No. AO thus had no relevant / tangible material. Here it is relevant to take note of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of SM Aggarwal reported in 293 ITR 43(Del) - copy enclosed at pages 418 to 423 of PB. In this case it is held by High Court as under: "It is well-settled that the only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document is the writer thereof. So, unless and until the contents of the document are proved against a person, the possession of the document…

SURESH KUMAR BANTHIA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(3), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Suresh Kumar Banthia Dcit, Central Circle-4(3) 147 Banthia House Mahatma Aayakar Bhavan, Poorva, 110 Gandhi Road, Burra Bazar, Shantipally, E.M. By Pass, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal Kolkata-700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aevpb2317L Assessee By : S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ars Revenue By : Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2025

For Appellant: S.M. Surana, &For Respondent: Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…notice that in some of the cases retracted confession has been used as a piece of corroborative evidence and not as the evidence on the basis whereof alone a judgment of conviction and sentence has been recorded." 011. The judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court 293 ITR 43 may also be cited wherein the Ld. Court dismissed the revenues appeal. The finding of the Ld. Tribunal in the said case vide para 10 was as under: - "We have ourselves examined the contents of the document and are unable to draw any clear and positive conclusion on the basis of figures noted on it. The letters 'H.S.', 'T.2' and 'D-Shop' cannot be…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1,, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…ns of s. 69C— Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by its employees in respect of proposed expenditure—There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation-Additions not sustainable. CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) – Held that "In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A- 28 p. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs.22.5 lacs on interest and earned interest income of Rs.3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document. The relevant findings…

Showing 1–20 of 264 · Page 1 of 14

...