(a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT

386 ITR 245Reported decision2016#11602 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

surrender of incomesubstantive assessmentsection 132(4a)section 292cloose paperssearch assessmentsection 133asection 132(4)salaryincriminating materialundisclosed incomesearch and seizure

Judgments citing (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. v. CIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

Mr. Manikkudi Jayaraman Mohan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…s surrounding his case. Since the assessee had offered additional income, the revenue did not carry out further investigation. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15.…

M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 732/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…he books of account maintained by the assessee- company. Thus the addition made can be sustained. We are also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 29 of 37 case of T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 245 wherein it was held as follows: (b) The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 411 wherein the statement made under Section 132 (4) of the Act was subsequently retracted giving proper explanation with documents in support of the retraction. Further, the statement therein was recorded at midnight…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 717/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.700, 15Th Cross, 24Th Main Road, J P Nagar Ii Phase, Bengaluru-560076. … Respondent Pan: Aabci 6764 K & M/S.Isiri Properties Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bengaluru. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, Ca. Assessee By : Shri H.Ananda, Jcit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri H.Ananda, JCIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri Zain Ahmed Khan, CA
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40a

…he books of account maintained by the assessee- company. Thus the addition made can be sustained. We are also supported by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the ITA No.717 & 732/Bang/2014 Page 29 of 37 case of T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 245 wherein it was held as follows: (b) The decision of the Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 411 wherein the statement made under Section 132 (4) of the Act was subsequently retracted giving proper explanation with documents in support of the retraction. Further, the statement therein was recorded at midnight…