86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted

187 ITD 289Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#15160 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 69Section 292CSection 132(4)Section 131(1A)Section 132(4A)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 38section 91section 65bsection 65section 292csection 131(1a)survey under section 133abeneficial ownerpanchnamasection 292section 132(4a)documents seized

Judgments citing 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rama Shankar Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…r Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE 42 Section 69 of the Act reads as under: "69. W…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rajesh Rani Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…r Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE 42 Section 69 of the Act reads as under: "69. W…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Payal Khemka, K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…r Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE 42 Section 69 of the Act reads as under: "69. W…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1132/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…third party was not enough to make addition under section 69 in assessee's hands on account of on money payment for purchase of property. 18. Referring to the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Harmohinder Kaur vs. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 289 (Amritsar – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that without corroborative evidence to prove authenticity of diary seized during search, Assessing Officer could not make additions in assessee's income on basis of notings in diary of third party by making presumptions as per section 292C. 19. Referring to the decis…

Shri Ganesh Bhivraj Bhutada, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1131/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…third party was not enough to make addition under section 69 in assessee's hands on account of on money payment for purchase of property. 18. Referring to the decision of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Harmohinder Kaur vs. DCIT (2021) 187 ITD 289 (Amritsar – Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that without corroborative evidence to prove authenticity of diary seized during search, Assessing Officer could not make additions in assessee's income on basis of notings in diary of third party by making presumptions as per section 292C. 19. Referring to the decis…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…rkashChaudhary v) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta vi) 383 ITR 320 (Del) CIT v. VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd. vii) 393 ITR 276 (Bom) CIT v. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. viii) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. ix) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal x) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. HarmohinderKaur v. DCIT xi) 165 TTJ 145 (Del) ACIT v. SharadChaudhary II That statements recorded/material relied and gathered behind the back of the assessee and without any opportunity for cross examination despite specific request made during the course of assessment proceedings, cannot be relied upon as it has no evidentiary value.…

86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted (187 ITD 289) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax