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

104 ITD 166Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#4947 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 366,339 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shikshana Prasaraka Mandali, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 571/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

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…

Zakaulla Siddqui, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2011-12 is partly allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 302/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui Asst. Commissioner Of A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Income-Tax, Central Vs. House, Napean Sea Road, Circle-47, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 A.C.I.T.-Cc-8(4) Mr. Zakaullah Siddiqui 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, A-Wing, 604 A, Simla Vs. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. House, Napean Sea Road, Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Aakps6026J Appellant Respondent Assesseeby : Mr. Ajay R. Singh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Jha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay R. Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Jha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…). It is also submitted that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement recorded if assessee had explained later the correct facts. He relies on the decision in Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. v. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18, Aishwarya Rai v. Dy. CIT 104 ITD 166 (TM) (Mum) and JyotichandBhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2013) 86 DTR 289 (Pune)(Trib.). 6.6 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. We begin with the relevant case laws on the above issue. In Shri Hiten Mehta (supra) during the course of search ac…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…A No. 138/2011 (Raj.) 56-59 Ramesh Pershad V/s Inspecting Assistant Commissioner 28 ITD 3 59-61 550 (Hyd.) 4 DCIT v/s Ratan Corporation (2005) 197 CTR (Guj) 536 61 5 Ushakant N. Patel V/s CIT (2006) 282 ITR 553 (Guj.) 61 6 Ms. Aishwarya K. Rai v/s DCIT (2007) 104 ITD 166 (MUM) (TM ) 62-63 7 Dadamchand Mochi V/s ITO (2006) 36 Tax World 11 (Jd) 63 8 ITO V/s Bua Dass (2006) 155 Taxman (Magzine) 131 (Amritsar) 63-64 9 Govind Ram Chhugani v/s ACIT (2002) 77 TTJ 339 (Jp) 64 10 ITO V/s L.N. Mehta (HUF) (2002) 77 TTJ 63 (Jd) 64-65 11 Radhey Shyam Tanwar V/s ACIT (2002) 77 TTJ 509 (Jd) 65 12 Maheshwari Industries v/s ACIT…