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

293 ITR 43High Court2007#309 most cited

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

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

SMC Share Brokers Ltd. · CIT vs SMC Share Stock Brokers · CIT vs S M Aggarwal · 293 ITR 43 · 288 ITR 345 · copy paste assessment · appraisal report · investigation wing · AO · independent investigation

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

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…Ltd. 288 ITR 345 It was held that in absence of witness being made available for cross examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee. Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment. (xii) CIT Vs. S M Aggarwa1 293 ITR 43 It was held that statement made by the assessee's daughter, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against the assessee, since the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine her and even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessee and represents his un…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 457/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…the author or custodian of the document has not confirmed the specific entry in question and there is no independent evidence linking the assessee to the contents. In the above context, the ld.AR relied on the following decisions CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)]: “The entries in third party documents cannot be presumed to be true without corroborative evidence.” CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)]: “Where there is no confirmation of the transaction or corroboration from either side, mere notings in seized material are insufficient to sustain addition.” Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 456/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…the author or custodian of the document has not confirmed the specific entry in question and there is no independent evidence linking the assessee to the contents. In the above context, the ld.AR relied on the following decisions CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)]: “The entries in third party documents cannot be presumed to be true without corroborative evidence.” CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)]: “Where there is no confirmation of the transaction or corroboration from either side, mere notings in seized material are insufficient to sustain addition.” Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 455/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…the author or custodian of the document has not confirmed the specific entry in question and there is no independent evidence linking the assessee to the contents. In the above context, the ld.AR relied on the following decisions CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)]: “The entries in third party documents cannot be presumed to be true without corroborative evidence.” CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)]: “Where there is no confirmation of the transaction or corroboration from either side, mere notings in seized material are insufficient to sustain addition.” Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 454/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…the author or custodian of the document has not confirmed the specific entry in question and there is no independent evidence linking the assessee to the contents. In the above context, the ld.AR relied on the following decisions CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)]: “The entries in third party documents cannot be presumed to be true without corroborative evidence.” CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)]: “Where there is no confirmation of the transaction or corroboration from either side, mere notings in seized material are insufficient to sustain addition.” Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 453/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…the author or custodian of the document has not confirmed the specific entry in question and there is no independent evidence linking the assessee to the contents. In the above context, the ld.AR relied on the following decisions CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [(2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del)]: “The entries in third party documents cannot be presumed to be true without corroborative evidence.” CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)]: “Where there is no confirmation of the transaction or corroboration from either side, mere notings in seized material are insufficient to sustain addition.” Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.…

Vaibhav Global Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…018 (dealing with a seized document seized not either bearing the taxpayer's name or signature). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269] Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CIT Vs. S.M.Agarwal, [293 ITR 43], CIT Vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. We accordingly hold that the impugned addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees' hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence is not sustainable. We thus direct to delete the impugned identical addition fo…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…at there were rough estimated noting as admitted which are only rough estimated paper, on this paper neither any date, nor any signature nor any correlated entry found. 7.Thus no addition can be made on basis of dumb document kindly refer CIT v/s SM Aaggrawal 293 ITR 43(Del). 8.In CIT v/s Grish Choudhary 296 ITR 619(Del) held that Search and seizure—Block assessment—Undisclosed income—Before an addition of an undisclosed income can be made, the AO has to bring on record the material found as a result of search of show that there is an undisclosed income—AO treated Rs. 48 lakhs as assessee’s undisclosed income on…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 Udaipur, Udaipur

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…at there were rough estimated noting as admitted which are only rough estimated paper, on this paper neither any date, nor any signature nor any correlated entry found. 7.Thus no addition can be made on basis of dumb document kindly refer CIT v/s SM Aaggrawal 293 ITR 43(Del). 8.In CIT v/s Grish Choudhary 296 ITR 619(Del) held that Search and seizure—Block assessment—Undisclosed income—Before an addition of an undisclosed income can be made, the AO has to bring on record the material found as a result of search of show that there is an undisclosed income—AO treated Rs. 48 lakhs as assessee’s undisclosed income on…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT- Central Circle-1 Udiapur, Udaipue

ITA 707/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…t there were rough estimated noting as admitted which are only rough estimated paper, on this paper neither any date, nor any signature nor any correlated entry found. 7. Thus no addition can be made on basis of dumb document kindly refer CIT v/s SM Aaggrawal 293 ITR 43(Del). 8. In CIT v/s Grish Choudhary 296 ITR 619(Del) held that Search and seizure—Block assessment—Undisclosed income—Before an addition of an undisclosed income can be made, the AO has to bring on record the material found as a result of search of show that there is an undisclosed income—AO treated Rs. 48 lakhs as assessee’s undisclosed income on…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…at there were rough estimated noting as admitted which are only rough estimated paper, on this paper neither any date, nor any signature nor any correlated entry found. 7.Thus no addition can be made on basis of dumb document kindly refer CIT v/s SM Aaggrawal 293 ITR 43(Del). 8.In CIT v/s Grish Choudhary 296 ITR 619(Del) held that Search and seizure—Block assessment—Undisclosed income—Before an addition of an undisclosed income can be made, the AO has to bring on record the material found as a result of search of show that there is an undisclosed income—AO treated Rs. 48 lakhs as assessee’s undisclosed income on…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri.Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (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 AgarwalvsACIT 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. Country wide Builde state Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukkottai

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

…Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (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 AgarwalvsACIT 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. Country wide Builde state Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (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 AgarwalvsACIT 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. Country wide Builde state Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (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 AgarwalvsACIT 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. Country wide Builde state Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur…

Akesh Sangemermer(P) Ltd, Industrial Area vs. ITO Ward 1 Kishangarh, City Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…R 345, it was held that in absence of witness being made available for cross examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee. Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment. ii) In the case of CIT Vs. SM Aggarwal 293 ITR 43, it was held that statement made by the assessee's daughter, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against the assessee, since the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine her and even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessee and represents his u…

Sri. D. K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

…018 (dealing with a seized document seized not either bearing the taxpayer’s name or signature). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269] Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CIT Vs. S.M.Agarwal, [293 ITR 43], CIT Vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. We accordingly hold that the impugned addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence is not sustainable. We thus direct to delete the impugned identical addition fo…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 1021 to 1024/Bang/2024 Shri. Kempareddy ACIT, 2013-14 to 2016-17 Govindraj, Central Circle - 2(3), No.206, 2nd main, 2nd Bangalore. Stage Domlur, Bengaluru-560071., Bangalore - 560071. PAN : ABLPG 9967 C 1290 to 1292/Bang/2024 DCIT, Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, 2014-15 to 20161-7 Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore - 560071. Bangalore. PAN : ABLPG 9967 C Assessee by : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, AR. Revenue by : Shri. Sridhar…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…e of machinery. Reliance was placed on the following propositions: I. That seized material in absence of any corroborative evidence found from the possession of the appellant, cannot form basis for making any addition. i) 291 ITR 36 (Del) CIT v KulwantRai ii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal iii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT v. GirishChaudhary iv) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. VedParkashChaudhary v) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta vi) 383 ITR 320 (Del) CIT v. VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd. vii) 393 ITR 276 (Bom) CIT v. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. viii) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. ix) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT v. J…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2024 vk;dj vihy la vk;dj vihy la fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2018-19 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@ fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@ fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@ cuke cuke cuke cuke ACIT, Banas Minerals Private Ltd Central Circle, F 51 Phase III, RICCO Vs. Kota Industrial Area, Jhalawar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCB 01…