65 23 DTR 171 (Del); DCIT v. Premsons 'B' Bench Mumbai BCA April

130 TTJ 159Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#3989 most cited

What is 65 23 DTR 171 (Del); DCIT v. Premsons 'B' Bench Mumbai BCA April authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made based solely on statements or confessions recorded at the time of a search, without corroborating evidence. Such confessions lack evidentiary value if not supported by other proof.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Premsons · 130 TTJ 159 · additions based on confession · search proceedings · corroborating evidence · evidentiary value of statements · section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 147Section 153Section 270ASection 271AACSection 274

Issues it is cited on

section 133a(3)(iii)section 44aasection 57(iii)survey under section 133aintangible assetssection 145(3)section 57addition under section 68section 145rejection of books of accounton-moneysection 274

Judgments citing 65 23 DTR 171 (Del); DCIT v. Premsons 'B' Bench Mumbai BCA April

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ing proper opportunity for cross-examination, the Tribunal has rightly deleted said addition. He also relied on the following decisions: CO Nos.28 & 33/PUN/2025 i) ACIT vs. Jewel Consumer Care (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 643 ii) DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 iii) D.S. Agencies & Associates vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 252 iv) ACIT vs. Nisha Jain (2025) 170 taxmann.com 550 v) Saaras Agro Industries vs. ACIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 319 vi) PCIT vs. Ramelex (P.) Ltd. (2025) 179 taxmann.com 374 vii) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2008) 167 Taxman 168 (Del) viii) Prakash Chand Nahta vs. CIT (2008) 1…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…assessee and without giving proper opportunity for cross-examination, the Tribunal has rightly deleted said addition. He also relied on the following decisions: i) ACIT vs. Jewel Consumer Care (P.) Ltd. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 643 ii) DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 iii) D.S. Agencies & Associates vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 252 iv) ACIT vs. Nisha Jain (2025) 170 taxmann.com 550 v) Saaras Agro Industries vs. ACIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 319 vi) PCIT vs. Ramelex (P.) Ltd. (2025) 179 taxmann.com 374 vii) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2008) 167 Taxman 168 (Del) viii) Prakash Chand Nahta vs. CIT (2008) 1…

BARKHA BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1878/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873, 1874 & 1875/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2020-21) Barkha Kishore Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India Agarwal Bldg, Nariman Point, 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Mumbai – 400 021. Industrial Estate, Chincholi Bunder Road, S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. PAN/GIR No. ABUPT6569N (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 1876, 1877 & 1878/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2020-21, 2022-23 & 2021-22) Barkha Bimal Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Bldg, Nariman Point, Indus…

BARKHA BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee\nstands allowed

ITA 1877/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2022-23
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…w a well settled law that the additions cannot be made on the basis of mere statements / concessions recorded at the time of search. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Premsons (130 TTJ 159)(T.Mum.) and ACIT Vs. Legend Developers &\nConstruction (ITA 743/Hyd/2018) and also the Instruction\nF No. 286/2/2003-IT (INV.11) dated 10.03.2003\n31. Therefore, while appreciating the facts as well as legal\npreposition of the present case, I am of the view that mere\nassessee's erroneous confession at the time of search cannot\nbe the sole bas…

BARKHA BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1876/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…w a well settled law that the additions cannot be made on the basis of mere statements / concessions recorded at the time of search. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Premsons (130 TTJ 159)(T.Mum.) and ACIT Vs. Legend Developers &\nConstruction (ITA 743/Hyd/2018) and also the Instruction F No. 286/2/2003-IT (INV.11) dated 10.03.2003\n\n31. Therefore, while appreciating the facts as well as legal preposition of the present case, I am of the view that mere assessee's erroneous confession at the time of search cannot be the sole basis…

BARKHA KISHORE KUMAR AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1875/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873, 1874 & 1875/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2020-21) Barkha Kishore Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India Agarwal Bldg, Nariman Point, 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Mumbai – 400 021. Industrial Estate, Chincholi Bunder Road, S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. PAN/GIR No. ABUPT6569N (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 1876, 1877 & 1878/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2020-21, 2022-23 & 2021-22) Barkha Bimal Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Bldg, Nariman Point, Indus…

BARKHA KISHORE KUMAR AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1874/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1873, 1874 & 1875/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2019-20, 2021-22 & 2020-21) Barkha Kishore Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India Agarwal Bldg, Nariman Point, 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Mumbai – 400 021. Industrial Estate, Chincholi Bunder Road, S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. PAN/GIR No. ABUPT6569N (Applicant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 1876, 1877 & 1878/Mum/2025 (A.Ys: 2020-21, 2022-23 & 2021-22) Barkha Bimal Kumar Vs. ACIT, CC – 5(4) 19th Floor, Air India 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Bldg, Nariman Point, Indus…

BARKHA KISHORE KUMAR AGARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals raised by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1873/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2019-20
Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…w a well settled law that the additions cannot be made on the basis of mere statements / concessions recorded at the time of search. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Premsons (130 TTJ 159)(T.Mum.) and ACIT Vs. Legend Developers &\nConstruction (ITA 743/Hyd/2018) and also the Instruction F No. 286/2/2003-IT (INV.11) dated 10.03.2003\n\n31. Therefore, while appreciating the facts as well as legal preposition of the present case, I am of the view that mere assessee's erroneous confession at the time of search cannot be the sole basis…

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2859/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ent cannot be made basis of addition unless the same is supported by credible evidence on record as has been held in following case laws: (a) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (b) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker); (c) M/s Premsons 130 TTJ 159; (d) Vinod Solanki 233 ELT 157 (SC). The AO has referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Manoharlal Kasturchand 57 TTJ 639 to contend that the admission made by the assessee is best evidence on a point in issue though not conclusive unless successfully withdrawn. I have gone through the said order, however, the same is not a…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2855/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 250

…ent cannot be made basis of addition unless the same is supported by credible evidence on record as has been held in following case laws: (a) CIT vs. Khader Khan Son 25 taxmann.com 413 (SC); (b) Paul Mathews & Sons vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker); (c) M/s Premsons 130 TTJ 159; (d) Vinod Solanki 233 ELT 157 (SC). The AO has referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Manoharlal Kasturchand 57 TTJ 639 to contend that the admission made by the assessee is best evidence on a point in issue though not conclusive unless successfully withdrawn. I have gone through the said order, however, the same is not a…

ASSIATANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI HARMESH KUMAR, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133A

…authority to examine any person on oath and, therefore, any admission made in a statement recorded during survey cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition…” Sir, further reliance is being placed upon the following decisions: DCIT Vs. PREMSONS (2010) 130 TTJ 159, wherein the hon’ble Mumbai bench held that“………Income from Undisclosed Sources—Addition—Stock physically found not tally with books of account—Addition on the basis of surrender—In order to make an addition on the basis of surrender during search or survey, is Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors sine qua non that there should be some other material…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PHAGWARA CIRCLE, PHAGWARA vs. SHRI CHUNI LAL, PHILLAUR

In the result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Dr. Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT DR
Section 133A

…authority to examine any person on oath and, therefore, any admission made in a statement recorded during survey cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition…” Sir, further reliance is being placed upon the following decisions: DCIT Vs. PREMSONS (2010) 130 TTJ 159, wherein the hon’ble Mumbai bench held that“………Income from Undisclosed Sources—Addition—Stock physically found not tally with books of account—Addition on the basis of surrender—In order to make an addition on the basis of surrender during search or survey, is Chuni Lal Gaba v. Asstt. CIT& Ors sine qua non that there should be some other material…

M/S. BELLEZZA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 74/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Nag/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Bellazza (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle-2, Lg-3, Achraj Tower-Ii, Vs Nagpur. Chhaoni Chowk, Chhindwara Road, Nagpur – 13. Pan: Aaccb 4029 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.C.Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 05.11.2014 Emanating From The Order Of Acit(Ao) Dated 30.12.2011 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act,1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] A.C.I.T. Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Account & Estimated Income @ 5% Of Total Receipts & Also Adding Additional Income Of Rs.30 Lacs To The Returned Income. Learned C.I.T.(A) Has Confirm The Addition Without Any Basis. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) & A.C.I.T. Erred In Not Accepting The Assessee’S Various Submission & Supporting Documents Filed By The

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 37

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ नागपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR V I R T U A L H E A R I N G BEFORE S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.74/NAG/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s.Bellazza (India) Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Circle-2, LG-3, Achraj Tower-II, Vs Nagpur. Chhaoni Chowk, Chhindwara Road, Nagpur – 13. PAN: AACCB 4029 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri S.C.Thakar – AR Revenue by Shri G.J.Ninawe - DR Date of hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 13/01/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK…

DCIT COR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PARMAR BUILD TECH, MUMBAI

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…or or relevant to any proceedings under the Act, however the officer is not authorized to record the statement on oath and hence the statement taken during the course of survey has no evidentiary value. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dy CIT VIS Premsons (130 TTJ 159) held that no ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 addition can be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at time of survey/ search; in order to make an addition on basis of surrender during search or survey, it is qua non that there should be some other material to co relate undisclosed income with s…

ACIT CIR 25(3), MUMBAI vs. PARMAR BUILT TECH, MUMBAI

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

…or or relevant to any proceedings under the Act, however the officer is not authorized to record the statement on oath and hence the statement taken during the course of survey has no evidentiary value. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Dy CIT VIS Premsons (130 TTJ 159) held that no ITA nos. 4122 /M/12 & 1100/M/13 Parmar Built Tech; A.Y. 09–10 addition can be made or sustained simply on the basis of statement recorded at time of survey/ search; in order to make an addition on basis of surrender during search or survey, it is qua non that there should be some other material to co relate undisclosed income with s…

ASST CIT 5(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. WORLD TRADE PARK LTD, JAIPUR

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1665/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…012) 25 taxmen.com 413, 17 I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 M/s World Trade Park Ltd 2. Jain Trading Co. Vrs. ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (Mum – Trib.) 3. D. S. Agencies & Associates Vrs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 252 (Mum-Trib) 4. DCIT Vrs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mum- Trib) 14. Further he submitted that before making addition none of the books are rejected and in this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vrs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513(SC). 15. With regard to assessment year 2012-13, he submitted that the addition was made similar to the facts in the asses…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above addition has been made by the AO without sufficient basis and is, therefore, not sustainable in law.…

SKYLARK BUILD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above addition has been made by the AO without sufficient basis and is, therefore, not sustainable in law.…

DCIT CEN CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…ylark Buildcon P. Ltd. Smt. Hemlata S. Shetty, Oasis Realty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . namely Paul Mathews & Son.s, vs. CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.), CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 214 CTR 589 (Mad.), DCIT vs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mumbai); CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works {2010) 236 CTR 621 (Del.) and others support the contention of the assessee that such addition could not be made without' sufficient evidence against the assessee. 'In the circumstances, I hold· that the above addition has been made by the AO without sufficient basis and is, therefore, not sustainable in law.…

DCIT 13(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. NIHAR EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…is nothing incriminating or any undisclosed material unearthed during the course of survey proceeding u/s.133A of the LT.Act vide DCIT vs. Amrapali Homes. 1.T.A.No.4 779 / Delhi /2009 and Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT's decision in the case of DCIT vs. Prem Sons (2010) 130 TTJ 159. Mahesh Ohri vs. ACIT (2013) 35 Taxmann.com 201 (Delhi). 5.5 However some of the findings of the Assessing Officer, based on statement given by the Director cannot be lightly discarded because the Appellant through its Directors has repeatedly admitted in his statement dated 09.01.2013 that goods were no received from the seven parties. It means…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

65 23 DTR 171 (Del); DCIT v. Premsons 'B' Bench Mumbai BCA April (130 TTJ 159) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax