7.4.1 Commissioner Of Income Tax-X v. Vivek Aggarwal

121 DTR 241High Court2015#14814 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 292C Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 133a unexplained investment section 132 section 15 section 13 transfer person document section 143(3)total income company interest

Judgments citing 7.4.1 Commissioner Of Income Tax-X v. Vivek Aggarwal

SANJAY TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

…ITA No.1643/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, vs ACIT, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. PAN-AAEPT8805A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, CA, Harish, CA, Neetu Jain, CA & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by the assessee aga…

DCIT CC 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. BRINDESH GOVERDHANDAS AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 258/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…e based on such dumb document. d) The said 'document' is merely a fabricated photocopy. It is most respectfully submitted that 'n' number of such documents can be created with malicious and malafide intents. Reliance is placed on CIT Vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 121 DTR 241 (Delhi HC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of undated and unsigned document. e) Material facts like the payment by cheques as mentioned in the document are not mentioned in the actual sale deed executed on 29.09.2017 and registered under law contents of the document are therefore not true. f) The amounts mention…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. JYOTSNA SURI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2840/DEL/2022[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2020-221

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CA

Section 69A

…ted on 28.06.2012. This establishes that the jewellery lying in locker No. 1984 was acquired by the appellant on or before 28.06.2012. 7.4 The relevant judicial decisions in this regard are as under: 7.4.1 Commissioner Of Income Tax-X vs Vivek Aggarwal [2015] 121 DTR 241 (Delhi HC] "So far as the second Investment of Rs 41,32,800/- is concerned there cannot be any doubt that the above was made in the period 1999-2000. Clearly that was beyond the block period and therefore time- barred and no addition can be made u/s153A. That apart the CIT(Appeals) noted that after the remand during the pendency of appellate pro…

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1),, RAJKOT vs. M/S. J. Y. RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 150/RJT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 147

…CIT (2009) 310 ITR 227 (Guj) that an amount found credited in the name of the assessee in the books of another party, the same cannot be treated as unexplained income of the assessee, The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT v/s Vivek Agrawal (2015) 121 DTR 241 held that if the document found is unsigned by the assesses, it could be held as a dumb document and no addition can be made on the basis of such document. Similar findings have been given by the various judicial authorities in several cases. In the case of Meghmani Organics vis. DCIT 6 ITR 360 (And), jurisdictional Ahmedabad Tribunal has held th…

VINAY TODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Todi V. Dcit – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 Pan: Adapt6426A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Vinay Todi v. DCIT – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 PAN: ADAPT6426A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department Represented by : Shri Vranda U Matkari Date of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against o…

SHRI SUBHASH CHAND KAPANIA PROP.,ROORKEE vs. ITO, ROORKEE

Appeal are disposed off in accordance with the

ITA 762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 133ASection 250(6)

…tion is made is a ‘dumb’ document as it is undated and unsigned, and no adverse inference should be drawn against the assessee on the basis of it. The Ld. counsel cited a few case laws in support of this contention including (i) CIT vs Vineet Aggarwal (2015) 121 DTR 241 (Delhi); (ii) Chander Mohan Mehta vs ACIT [1999] 71/ITD/245 [Pune]; (iii) D.D.Malhan vs DCIT 91/TTJ/947. (Delhi). In this regard, our special attention was drawn by Ld. counsel for the assessee to the precedent in the case of CIT vs Vineet Aggarwal (supra). The Ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had produced all…