Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar

97 ITR 696High Court1974#699 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on documents or material found from a third party's premises unless the Assessing Officer conducts an independent investigation, examines the third party, and establishes a clear link between the material and the assessee.

145

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar · 97 ITR 696 · section 132 · section 132(4A) · documents from third party · material from third party · independent investigation · additions to income · linking evidence · corroboration · unexplained income · 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4A)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 292CSection 69ASection 69CSection 153A

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionsection 44afjewellery found during searchsection 132(4a)section 65bsection 65dumb documentssection 150unexplained jewellerysection 292cretraction of statementthird party information

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar

Expressway Services Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 486/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…confronted to the assessee along with other supporting evidence. A similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Concorde Capital Management Co. [2009] 334 ITR 346 (Del)). The case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) is a landmark ruling on the use of third-party evidence in tax assessments. The court held that entries in a third party's books of accounts. statements, or loose papers cannot form the sole basis for an addition unless corroborated by primary or direct evidence. It emphasized that unverified oral testimony is unreliable. Furthermore, the Co…

Expressway Services Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 485/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…confronted to the assessee along with other supporting evidence. A similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Concorde Capital Management Co. [2009] 334 ITR 346 (Del)). The case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) is a landmark ruling on the use of third-party evidence in tax assessments. The court held that entries in a third party's books of accounts. statements, or loose papers cannot form the sole basis for an addition unless corroborated by primary or direct evidence. It emphasized that unverified oral testimony is unreliable. Furthermore, the Co…

Expressway Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 484/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…confronted to the assessee along with other supporting evidence. A similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Concorde Capital Management Co. [2009] 334 ITR 346 (Del)). The case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Expressway Services Pvt. Ltd. Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) is a landmark ruling on the use of third-party evidence in tax assessments. The court held that entries in a third party's books of accounts. statements, or loose papers cannot form the sole basis for an addition unless corroborated by primary or direct evidence. It emphasized that unverified oral testimony is unreliable. Furthermore, the Co…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Deepak Mohanlal Purswani, Rajkot

ITA 665/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.630 & 631/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-2022 & 2022-23) Hybrid Hearing Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani बनाम The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Vs. Aaykar Bhawan "Amruta Estate", Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Mg Road, Rajkot 360001, Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No.665/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2022-23) The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot बनाम Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani Aaykar Bhawan“Amruta Estate", 2Nd Vs. Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Floor Mg Road Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Rajkot 360001, Gujrat Convent, Kalawad Road, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P Rajkot-360001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3 SCC 410 • Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki Vs. Uol&Anr (SC-Civil Appeal No.7407 of 2008) • Page 11 of 35 Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bombay), wherein, it held that- entries in the day-book or the ledger would be a corroborative piece of evidence and once the direct evidence of the person who was said to have made payments in 'black' to the assessee was disbelieved no value could be attached to entries in the ledger or to the entries in the day-book even if one had been produce…

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)

…(Formerly VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd.) v. CIT (extracted at page 308 of Paper Book) 39 Khemka Group vii) 322 ITR 191 (Del) CIT v. Anil Bhalla (extracted at page 309 of Paper Book) viii) 423 ITR 1 (Del) CIT v. Sant Lal (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) ix) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT v. Mis. Lata mangeshkar x) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) Pr. CIT v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper 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 (D…

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)

…(Formerly VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd.) v. CIT (extracted at page 308 of Paper Book) 39 Khemka Group vii) 322 ITR 191 (Del) CIT v. Anil Bhalla (extracted at page 309 of Paper Book) viii) 423 ITR 1 (Del) CIT v. Sant Lal (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) ix) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT v. Mis. Lata mangeshkar x) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) Pr. CIT v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper 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 (D…

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)

…(Formerly VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd.) v. CIT (extracted at page 308 of Paper Book) 39 Khemka Group vii) 322 ITR 191 (Del) CIT v. Anil Bhalla (extracted at page 309 of Paper Book) viii) 423 ITR 1 (Del) CIT v. Sant Lal (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) ix) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT v. Mis. Lata mangeshkar x) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) Pr. CIT v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper 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 (D…

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

…d that the said documents were not seized from the assessee's premises and were never provided to the assessee for rebuttal. The law is well settled that additions cannot be made on the basis of unverified third-party material. In ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696, Bom), the Hon'ble High Court held that tax authorities cannot make additions merely relying upon third-party documents or statements without independent corroboration. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence. In the present case, the AO did not establish any direct nexus between the assessee and the seized material. The assessee catego…

Vista Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 250

…n of income can only be resorted to after rejecting the books of account by recording dissatisfaction as to their correctness or completeness. The Ld. counsel also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court judgment in ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), wherein it was held that third-party statements or documents cannot form the sole basis for addition in absence of any corroborative evidence linking the assessee. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. The assessee had submitted purchase invoices, party-wise confirmations, and ledger extracts of regular suppliers, which were n…

DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Rajarampuri Motipuri Gosavi, Thane

In the result, all the grounds of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Rajarampuri Motipuri Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Gosavi 6(1) 1002 Steppes Vasant Lawns, Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Pokharan Road No. 2, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Eastern Express Highway, Kurla Complex, Bandra Subhash Nagar, Thane – 400 (East), Mumbai – 400 051, 601, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpg2425M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…the AO on the information received from the search on third party. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the present case. 13. Before concluding, gainful reference can be made to the decision in the case of ACIT v/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar, [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.), wherein while dismissing the Revenue's appeal in a case wherein additions were made on the basis of documents seized and statements recorded from the third party, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court observed as follows: - "The Income-tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger maintained by the firm known as Vasu Films of Madras containin…

ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande, Solapur, Maharashtra

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…the AO on the information received from the search on third party. Thus, the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the present case. 13. Before concluding, gainful reference can be made to the decision in the case of ACIT v/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar, [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.), wherein while dismissing the Revenue’s appeal in a case wherein additions were made on the basis of documents seized and statements recorded from the third party, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed as follows: - P a g e | 16 A.Y. 2021-22 Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande “The Income-tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger mai…

Pravin Khetaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle (4)2, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4744/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…on. Since there was no independent material to prove that the assessee had actually paid interest in cash, the addition made under section 69C was unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly stood deleted. 20. In Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court considered additions made under section 69A on the basis of statements of two persons claiming to have paid money in ‘black' to the assessee, along with entries in their own books reflecting such alleged payments. The Tribunal, after scrutinizing the evidence, found that the statements suffered from serious infirmitie…

Pravin Khetaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4743/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…ion. Since there was no independent material to prove that the assessee had actually paid interest in cash, the addition made under section 69C was unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly stood deleted. 20. In Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court considered additions made under section 69A on the basis of statements of two persons claiming to have paid money in ‘black’ to the assessee, along with entries in their own books reflecting such alleged payments. The Tribunal, after scrutinizing the evidence, found that the statements suffered from serious infirmitie…

Pravin Khetaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mubmai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4742/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…ion. Since there was no independent material to prove that the assessee had actually paid interest in cash, the addition made under section 69C was unsustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly stood deleted. 20. In Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.), the Bombay High Court considered additions made under section 69A on the basis of statements of two persons claiming to have paid money in ‘black' to the assessee, along with entries in their own books reflecting such alleged payments. The Tribunal, after scrutinizing the evidence, found that the statements suffered from serious infirmitie…

DCIT., Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…o not constitute material evidence in relation to a third person and therefore set aside the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act, holding it to be void. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), had come across an addition that was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the entries in the books of third persons. The Hon'ble High Court held that such an addition could not have been made only on the basis of the notings in the books of third persons. 35. Apart from that, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that i…

DCIT., Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. United Developer, Hyderabad

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

…o not constitute material evidence in relation to a third person and therefore set aside the notices issued u/s 153C of the Act, holding it to be void. Also, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), had come across an addition that was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the entries in the books of third persons. The Hon'ble High Court held that such an addition could not have been made only on the basis of the notings in the books of third persons. 35. Apart from that, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that i…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 271D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री जगदीश, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.3188 to 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 to 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department by Assessee by सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Da…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…e assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found used against the assessee since no incriminating documents were found with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 with it. In the case of Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the (Bom), the addition was made in the hands…