How many judgments cite ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (133 ITD 57), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 133(6), Section 139, Section 153A.

ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain

133 ITD 57Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#8178 most cited

What is ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain authority for?

Statements made under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, during a search and seizure operation can be retracted, but such retractions must be substantiated.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACIT v Hukum Chand Jain · 133 ITD 57 · section 132(4) · retraction of statement · search and seizure · statement under section 132(4) · unexplained jewellery · Dumb documents

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 153A Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement unexplained jewellery statement under section 132(4)section 158bb section 131(1a)section 69b dumb documents section 132(4a)section 40a(3)section 292c section 132(4)block period

Judgments citing ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 637/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 40A

…urt in the case of Awadh Kishore Dassvs Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCITvsAvinash Kumar Setia [2017] (Delhi), Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT vs Hukum Chand Jain [2010], Kantilal C. Shah vs ACIT [2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad), PCIT v Shri Roshan Lal Sancheti in D.B. ITA No. 47/2018 vide its judgement dated 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v Abdul Razack in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) 4. The issues involved in these appeals are arising due to search conducted in the A…

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 636/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2083/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 153A

…in the case Awadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] (Delhi), Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain [2010], Kantilal C. Shah v ACIT [2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad), PCIT V Shri Roshan Lai Sancheti, in D. B. ITA No. 47/2018 vide its judgement dated 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v O Abdul Razack in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) 4. Any other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing. ITA Nos.2081 to 2…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2082/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 153A

ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Ramchandra Naveen, Bangalore

ITA 2081/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 153A

…in the case Awadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] (Delhi), Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain [2010], Kantilal C. Shah v ACIT [2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad), PCIT V Shri Roshan Lai Sancheti, in D. B. ITA No. 47/2018 vide its judgement dated 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v O Abdul Razack in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.). 4. Any other grounds which may be urged at the time of hearing. Page 3 of 44 Gr…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Medall Scans and Labs Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1114/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 133ASection 139

…in the case Awadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] (Delhi), Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain [2010], Kantilal C. Shah v ACIT [2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad), PCIT V Shri Roshan Lai Sancheti, in D. B. ITA No. 47/2018 vide its judgement dated 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v 0 Abdul Razack in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) 2. . Since the issue involved in all the three years are similar, therefore, we…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Clumax Diagnostics and Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1110/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132Section 133ASection 139

…in the case Awadh Kishore Dass vs. Ram Gopal AIR 1979 SC 861, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] (Delhi), Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hukum Chand Jain [2010], Kantilal C. Shah v ACIT [2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad), PCIT V Shri Roshan Lai Sancheti, in D. B. ITA No. 47/2018 vide its judgement dated 30.10.2018, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v 0 Abdul Razack in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) 2. . Since the issue involved in all the three years are similar, therefore, we…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…rted by corroborative b) evidence. 4.3. Judicial Precedents: Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Ravi Mathur v. CIT [(2018) 98 taxmann.com 332 (Raj)]: A delayed and a) unsupported retraction holds no legal value. Kantilal C. Shah v. ACIT [(2011) 133 ITD 57 (Ahd)]: Self-retraction without b) immediate and convincing evidence is deemed an afterthought and lacks credibility. 5. Contradiction in Respondent’s Stance 5.1. No Rebuttal of Key Details: The assessee has not objected to the details of companies, bank a) accounts, and loan amounts identified during the investigation. The lack of any rebuttal…

ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar vs. Sh. Tara Chand Gupta, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 447 to 449/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Shri Tarachand Gupta ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke…

Sh. Tarachand Gupta, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ed in reversing the order of the AO which was affirmed by the CIT(A) also. (Emphasis supplied) Kantilal C. Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Ahmedabad [2011] 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahmedabad ITAT)/[2012] 15 ITR/T) 62(Ahmedabad- ITAT)/[2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad ITAT)/[2011] 142 TTJ 233(Ahmedabad - ITAT)[24-06-2011] Section 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995 Whether sertion 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on oath and such a swom statement made under section 132(4), th…

Kohinoor Crafts, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

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

ITA 9556/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69C

…thers – Rajasthan High Court); (xii) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setai (ITA 935/2016 dated 01.05.2017); (xiii) Kanti Lal Parbhu Das Patel vs. DCIT (2005) 93 ITD 117 (Indore); (xiv) Dr. SC Gupta vs. CIT (2001) ITR 782 (All); (xv) Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT (2011) 133 ITD 57 (Ahd); & (xvi) ACIT vs. Hukumchand Jain (2011) 337 ITR 238 (Chattisgarh). 6. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ravi 4 Kumar Verma vs. CIT reported in 214 Taxmann 117, wherein it has been held that retraction made after four years is a…

M/S Bannalal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 720/JPR/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2017AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehara (Addl.CIT)

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 40A(3)

…establish that the admission made in the statement earlier at the time of survey was wrong and infact there was no additional income. The burden does not seem to have been attempted to be discharged by the assessee. (6) Kantilal C. Shah vs. Asstt. CIT (2011) 133 ITD 57/14 Taxman.com “assessing officer made additions in respect of unaccounted income admitted under section 132(4). However, after laps of about nine months from date of admission, assessee through an affidavit sought to retract from statement made under section 132(4). It was held that statement recorded under section 132(4) 9 M/s Bannalal Jat Const…