What is 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT authority for?

A statement made during a survey or search is substantial evidence and can be read against the assessee unless retracted with strong evidence of duress or coercion; a bald assertion of duress is insufficient.

How many judgments cite 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT (56 Taxmann.com 75), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 147, Section 131, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 153A.

367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT (56 Taxmann.com 75)

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT. SAKHIBEN PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1596/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…assessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special knowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without reasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an assessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H). 4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive evidence to come to the…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT. SAKHIBEN PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1595/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Smt. Sakhiben Patel, Income Tax, Central Circle बनाम 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.71/Mum/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1595/Mum/2019) (A.Y. 2012-13) Smt. Sakhiben Patel, V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of 601, 6Th Floor, Petit Towers, बनाम Income Tax, Central Circle –7(3), Room No. 655, 6Th August Kranti Marg, Kemps Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Corner, Mumbai – 400 036, Road, Mumbai - 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalpp1508R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT-DR)

Section 131(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…assessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special knowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without reasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an assessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H). 4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive evidence to come to the…

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1 THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ring survey operations has not been made out. He placed reliance on Pebble Investment and Finance ITA No.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017 dated 5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep Dhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118 Taxman 252(All). 9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on the statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later. Statement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted a few days later. It…

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 378/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ring survey operations has not been made out. He placed reliance on Pebble Investment and Finance ITA No.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017 dated 5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep Dhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118 Taxman 252(All). 9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on the statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later. Statement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted a few days later. It…

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ring survey operations has not been made out. He placed reliance on Pebble Investment and Finance ITA No.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017 dated 5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep Dhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118 Taxman 252(All). 9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on the statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later. Statement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted a few days later. It…

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

ITA 376/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…vey operations has not been made out. He placed\nreliance on Pebble Investment\nand Finance\nITA\nNo.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon'ble\nSupreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017\ndated\n5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep\nDhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118\nTaxman 252(All).\n\n9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made\nbefore the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on\nthe statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later.\nStatement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted\na few days la…

MUMBRA SHIKHSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

ITA 375/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh S. Athavale, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…vey operations has not been made out. He placed\nreliance on Pebble Investment\nand Finance\nITA\nNo.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon'ble\nSupreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017\ndated\n5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep\nDhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118\nTaxman 252(All).\n\n9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made\nbefore the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on\nthe statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later.\nStatement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted\na few days la…

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr.AR)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ring survey operations has not been made out. He placed reliance on Pebble Investment and Finance ITA No.988/2014(Bombay High Court) upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.11784/2017 dated 5.7.2017,Rajhans Towers 230 Taxman 567(Del), Navdeep Dhingra 56 Taxmann.com 75(Punjab )and Dr. S.C Gupta 118 Taxman 252(All). 9. Before us, the ld.AR has reiterated the submissions made before the ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that the AO had wrongly relied on the statements recorded during the survey which were retracted later. Statement of the trustee was extracted under duress which was retracted a few days later. It…

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS LOGISTICS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4058/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…assessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special knowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without reasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an assessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H). 4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive evidence to come to the…

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 3115/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 68Section 69C

…sessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special\nknowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without\nreasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an\nassessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H).\n4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the\nstatement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however,\nshould be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was\nrecorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive\nevidence to come to…

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS, MUMBAI

ITA 3041/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…assessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special knowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without reasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an assessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H). 4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive evidence to come to the…

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

ITA 3040/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR.)

Section 132Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…assessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special knowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without reasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an assessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H). 4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however, should be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was recorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive evidence to come to the…

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS BUILDSPACE LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1485/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 68Section 69C

…sessee. An admission is substantial evidence of a fact, within the special\nknowledge of an assessee, and if not retracted immediately or without\nreasonable time is substantive evidence of a fact and may be read against an\nassessee (Navdeep Dhingra vs.CIT) (56 Taxmann.com 75)(P&H).\n4. The burden lay on the assessee to show that the admission made by him in the\nstatement earlier at the time of survey was wrong. Such retraction, however,\nshould be supported by strong evidence stating that the earlier statement was\nrecorded under duress and coercion, and this has to have certain definitive\nevidence to come to…

ALIASAGAR INAYATHUSAIN BOHARI,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the appellant for A

ITA 1160/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1160/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Dhule. M/S. Saifee Machinery, Shop No.6, Opp. Panchayat Samiti Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon- 425405. Pan : Abapb5558K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000 When The Impounded Material Is Covered In The Finalized Books Of Accounts Which Were Duly Audited Nothing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1160/PUN/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Aliasagar Inayathusain Bohari, Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Dhule. M/s. Saifee Machinery, Shop No.6, Opp. Panchayat Samiti Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon- 425405. PAN : ABAPB5558K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 05.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order date…

M/S MARS COIONIZER P LTD ,RAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL -II, RAIPUR

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 113/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Mars Colonizer Acit, Central-2, Private Limited, Bhopal C/O Hotel Amit Regency, बनाम/ Saibaba Complex, Vs. Moti Bag Chowk, Raipur (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aafca 6847 B Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Shri Yash Kukreja, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.04.2024

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ing decisions, is such that the retraction made after 2-3 years of surrender is not acceptable or the retraction cannot make the statement unacceptable: (i) PCIT Vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 Taxmann.com 476 (Delhi HC) (ii) Navdeep Dhingra Vs. CIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 75 (P&H HC) Page 15 of 21 M/s Mars Colonizers Private Limited, Raipur vs. ACIT, Central-2, Bhopal. ITA No. 113/Ind/2020 – AY 2013-14 (iii) Sanjeev Agarwal Vs. ITSC (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 214 (Allahabad HC) (iv) Rajhans Towers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2015) 56 Taxmann.com 67 (Delhi HC) (v) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs. CIT (2013) 31 Taxmann.com 274 (Delhi…

SHAMBHU PRASAD RASTOGI,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, RANGE 3(4), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.66/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बनधम/ Shambhu Prasad Rastogi Ito, Range-3(4) Prop. M/S. Rastogi Sarraf, Aayakar Bhawan, Mahant Vs. Dhundhi Katara, Mirzapur- Shivala, Mirzapur- 231001. 231307. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpr8527Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Nita Goyal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-03 Dated 29.03.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,84,080/- On Account Of Alleged Excess Stock-In-Trade On The Date Of Survey (I.E. On 06.01.2012).

For Appellant: Ms. Nita GoyalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD “SMC” BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.66/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बनधम/ Shambhu Prasad Rastogi ITO, Range-3(4) Prop. M/s. Rastogi Sarraf, Aayakar Bhawan, Mahant Vs. Dhundhi Katara, Mirzapur- Shivala, Mirzapur- 231001. 231307. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AANPR8527Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Nita Goyal Revenue by: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R…

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.78/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. PAN: AUIPS 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – DR Date of hearing 25/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P…

SARITHA SHIVAYYAGARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Saritha Shivayyagari Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. Ward 11(3) Pan:Bkqps0479M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2009-10. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.63,75,185/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ita 98/Hyd/2020

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Saritha Shivayyagari Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. Ward 11(3) PAN:BKQPS0479M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CA Revenue by: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR Date of hearing: 03/10/2022 Date of pronouncement: 17/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner of Inc…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SHAMARAJU & COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

ITA 2144/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekhar &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1999 to 2012/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2142 to 2144/Bang/2018 M/s. Divyashree Infrastructure, Bangalore & M/s. Shyamaraju & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1999 to 2005/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s. Divyashree Infrastructure “Divyashree Chambers”, “A” Wing Deputy Commissioner of #11, O;Shaugnessy Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-2(3) Bengaluru PAN NO :AAFFD3896A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.2006 to 2012/Bang/2018 Assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SHAMARAJU & COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees, viz

ITA 2143/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekhar &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…ITA Nos.1999 to 2012/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2142 to 2144/Bang/2018 M/s. Divyashree Infrastructure, Bangalore & M/s. Shyamaraju & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1999 to 2005/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2014-15 M/s. Divyashree Infrastructure “Divyashree Chambers”, “A” Wing Deputy Commissioner of #11, O;Shaugnessy Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 025 Central Circle-2(3) Bengaluru PAN NO :AAFFD3896A APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.2006 to 2012/Bang/2018 Assessmen…

367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT

What is 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 367 (Allahabad) Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT. SAKHIBEN PATEL, MUMBAI

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. SMT. SAKHIBEN PATEL, MUMBAI

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1 THANE, THANE

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

MUMBRA SHIKHSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

DCIT CC 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS LOGISTICS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., MUMBAI

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

DCIT, CC - 7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. DEVELOPERS AND REALTORS, MUMBAI

DCIT - CC -7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S A. M. CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S LOTUS BUILDSPACE LLP, MUMBAI

ALIASAGAR INAYATHUSAIN BOHARI,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DHULE

M/S MARS COIONIZER P LTD ,RAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL -II, RAIPUR

SHAMBHU PRASAD RASTOGI,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, RANGE 3(4), MIRZAPUR

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

SARITHA SHIVAYYAGARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3) , HYDERABAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SHAMARAJU & COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SHAMARAJU & COMPANY INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE