70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT

104 ITD 166Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#4956 most cited

What is 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT authority for?

A statement made during a search under section 132(4) cannot be retracted if there is no evidence to support the retraction. Loose papers found during a search do not automatically become 'dumb documents' if they are considered part of the seized material.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT · 70 ITD 77 · 104 ITD 166 · section 132(4) · retraction of statement · dumb documents · section 292c · loose papers · seized documents · search assessment · ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)dumb documentssection 292cloose paperssection 40a(3)entry operatoron-moneysection 40asearch assessmentdocuments seizedsection 132(4)

Judgments citing 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…i vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC)\n•\nJagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689)\n(Mum)\n•\nRajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.)\n•\nAsst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867\n(Ahd)\n•\nAishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum)\n•\nS.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM)\n•\nCBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410\n•\nM.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai)\n200\n•\nCIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)]\n•\nShree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159]\n•\nACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA\nNo.…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…nod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200 CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] • ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industries Limited and vice-versa [ITA No. 1281 to 1284/…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…nod Solanki vs. UOI [2009] (233) ELT 157 (SC) • Jagmohan Singh Arora vs. DCIT [2006] 101 TTJ 682 (689) (Mum) • Rajesh Jain vs. Dy. CIT [2006] 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) • Asst. CIT vs. Jorawar Singh M. Rathod [2005] 94 TTJ 867 (Ahd) • Aishwarya Rai vs. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) • S.P. Goyal vs. DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai)(TM) • CBI v V.C. Shukla [1998] SCC 410 • M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2007] 107 TTJ (Chennai) M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 21 of 73 • CIT v. Ashok Kumar Jain [369 ITR 145 (Raj.)] • Shree Ganesh Trading Co. v. CIT [257 CTR (Jharkhand) 159] • ACIT v. Ghatge Patil Industr…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIRAL SARAF MITTAL , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

…iated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy.CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). 8.9. On the identical issue of LTCG on the sale of penny stock, where addition was made on the basis of Kolkata Investigation Wing Report, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investment vs ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 327 (Bombay), has held as under- “15. As regards the penny stock, in the reason for reopening, it is state…

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ed by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record that assessee paid cash to obtain LTCG. 5.5. The ld. A/R submitted tha…

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ed by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record that assessee paid cash to obtain LTCG. 5.5. The ld. A/R submitted tha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ed by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record that assessee paid cash to obtain LTCG. 5.5. The ld. A/R submitted tha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ed by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record that assessee paid cash to obtain LTCG. 5.5. The ld. A/R submitted tha…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ed by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of the assessee, there is no direct evidence brought on record by the A.O. to hold that the assessee introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record that assessee paid cash to obtain LTCG. 5.5. The ld. A/R submitted tha…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…has (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} relied on the principle laid down by the ITAT in the case of Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir. 2, Mumbai reported in [2007] 104 ITD 166 (MUM.) (TM) wherein on second appeal, the Judicial Member, inter alia, held that subsequent retraction was correction of the earlier statement which was disagreed to by the Accountant Member. On a reference, the Third Member agreed with view of the Judicial Member holding that a subsequent statement has to be seen as a clarification of an earlier…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…has (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} relied on the principle laid down by the ITAT in the case of Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir. 2, Mumbai reported in [2007] 104 ITD 166 (MUM.) (TM) wherein on second appeal, the Judicial Member, inter alia, held that subsequent retraction was correction of the earlier statement which was disagreed to by the Accountant Member. On a reference, the Third Member agreed with view of the Judicial Member holding that a subsequent statement has to be seen as a clarification of an earlier…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…has (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} relied on the principle laid down by the ITAT in the case of Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Cir. 2, Mumbai reported in [2007] 104 ITD 166 (MUM.) (TM) wherein on second appeal, the Judicial Member, inter alia, held that subsequent retraction was correction of the earlier statement which was disagreed to by the Accountant Member. On a reference, the Third Member agreed with view of the Judicial Member holding that a subsequent statement has to be seen as a clarification of an earlier…

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ourt in the case of CIT vs Radhakishan Goyal as reported in 278 ITR 454, Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sushil Devi S Agrawal as reported in 50 ITD 524, Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Ms Aishwarya K Rai vs DCIT as reported in 104 ITD 166 and Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Chandesh Kumar Maheshwari vs ACIT also support the case of the appellant. 7.12 Considering the overall facts of the case when the addition has been made merely on the basis of statement as recorded U/s l32[4] of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material or assets to link with the said di…

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI PANKAJ KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1044/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ourt in the case of CIT vs Radhakishan Goyal as reported in 278 ITR 454, Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sushil Devi S Agrawal as reported in 50 ITD 524, Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Ms Aishwarya K Rai vs DCIT as reported in 104 ITD 166 and Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Chandesh Kumar Maheshwari vs ACIT also support the case of the appellant. 7.12 Considering the overall facts of the case when the addition has been made merely on the basis of statement as recorded U/s l32[4] of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material or assets to link with the said di…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 577/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 576/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 575/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 574/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 573/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 572/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ound as a result of search and placed reliance upon the Instruction F.No.286/2/2003-IT (Inv. II), dated 10.03.2003, CBDT letter F. No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv. II), dated 18.12.2014, CIT Vs. K. Bhuvanendran and Ors [303 ITR 235 (Mad.)], Aishwarya K. Rai Vs. DCIT [104 ITD 166 (Mum) (TM), PushpaVihar Vs. ACIT [48 TT] 389 (Mum)], Jyotichand A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2011-12 Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune)], CIT Vs. Uttamchand Jain [320 ITR 554 (Bom.)]. He argued that the statement of the persons recorded by the search officers cannot be relied against the assessee. 17. Having heard both as to why ret…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT (104 ITD 166) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax