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 366,314 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

Shri Nirmal Parmanand Anand, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is 8

ITA 654/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Nirmal Parmanand Anand, Cit(A), Nfac Acit Circle 25/26, Kailash Darshan Kennedy 16(1), Bridge, Gant Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aenpa 2374 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh AdvaniFor Respondent: 24/06/2024
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ion us the ld counsel for the assessee relied in the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs Lata mbay High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs Lata mbay High Court in the case of Additional CIT vs Lata Mangeshkar reported in 97 ITR 696 (Bom). reported in 97 ITR 696 (Bom). 7. The arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee have been The arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee have been The arguments of the Ld. counsel for the assessee have been considered. He has considered. He has assailed finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on various grounds, which…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-4…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-4…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-4…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…e documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 821 (Kerala) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Officer viii) 220 Taxman 168 (Del.) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Magpal ix) ITA 984/2019 dated 4.3.2024 PCIT vs. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (pages 404-4…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar vs. Narendra Sampatlal Bafna, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 688/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ative evidence was found other than the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. 14 CO No.25/PUN/2024 13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl.CIT vs. Ms Lata Mangeshkar reported in 97 ITR 696 (Bom) submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that mere entries in the accounts regarding payments to the assessee were not sufficient as there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine. The Hon’ble High Court accordingly upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition by holding that there was no pro…

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 582/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay (TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428). The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru A.J…

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 581/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay (TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428). The Ld. CIT-DR has referred to the case law of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru A.J…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 606/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay (TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428). 24. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its recent decision titled as CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (15…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 605/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay (TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428). 24. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its recent decision titled as CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (15…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 604/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Gaurangbhai Pramodchandra Upadhyay (TCA No.98 of 2020) as well as the decision of Pune Tribunal in Vinit Ranawat vs ACIT (88 Taxmann.com 428). 24. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its recent decision titled as CIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (15…

DCIT, Central Circle-2.4, Chennai vs. Shri Vivek Papisetty, Chennai

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 211/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Dcit Shri Vivek Papisetty बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 2. Cross Objection No.8/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.211/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बनाम/ Shri Vivek Papisetty Dcit No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Vs. Central Circle-1(4) 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Brcpp-6180-N (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-04-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

…he searched person or qua the person who was found in the possession or control of such documents. Such a presumption was not applicable to a person other than the searched persons as held by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of ACIT vs. Latha Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and various other decisions of Tribunal as enumerated in para 58 of the impugned order. Therefore, the observation of AO that the provisions of Sec.132(4A) and 292C support the veracity of the seized document vis- à-vis the assessee was untenable in law. 5.10 The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the seized material did not contain complete informatio…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

…d on the basis on mere admission in a statement in the absence of incriminating evidence. Assessee placed reliance on certain decision which shall include Radhey Shyam Agarwal vs. DCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 336 (Jaipur) and CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) etc. 7. Learned CIT(A) considered the contentions of the assessee in the light of the material available on record. As a matter of fact, he found that Page 3 of 9 the entries in the books of accounts were found to be bogus in respect of the sub-contract expenses, which were over booked by the assessee than actuals by taking accommodation bi…

DCIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Chandumal Rohra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1920/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain/Pratik JainFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

…the AO has carried out considered for making additions unless the AO has carried out considered for making additions unless the AO has carried out independent finding based on such ma independent finding based on such material. - Add. CIT Vs Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) Add. CIT Vs Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) - CBI VS V. C. Shuka (3 SCC 410)DEPARTMEN CBI VS V. C. Shuka (3 SCC 410)DEPARTMEN - Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) - DCIT Vs H.S. Chadramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012) DCI…

DCIT, Cir-22(1), Mumbai vs. Prakash Chandumal Rohra, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 1919/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Mani Jain/Pratik JainFor Respondent: Mr. H M Bhatt, DR

…the AO has carried out considered for making additions unless the AO has carried out considered for making additions unless the AO has carried out independent finding based on such ma independent finding based on such material. - Add. CIT Vs Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) Add. CIT Vs Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) - CBI VS V. C. Shuka (3 SCC 410)DEPARTMEN CBI VS V. C. Shuka (3 SCC 410)DEPARTMEN - Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (Vide ITA NO. 2588/Ahd/2012) - DCIT Vs H.S. Chadramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012) DCI…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vapi vs. M/S Mahavir Jain Charitable Trust, Valsad

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 208/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.208/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Mahavir Jain Income-Tax, Central Circle-Vapi, Charitable Trust, 410/411, Vs 9Th Floor, Fortune Square Ii, Amar Chambers, Station Daman Road, Chala, Vapi- Road, Opp. Lal School, 396191 Valsad-396001 Pan No. Aamts 6784 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…ions are as follows:  CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram 294 ITR 49 (SC)  CIT vs. Anil Khandelwal 93 CCH 0042 (Del)  CIT vs. S.M.S. Investment Corpn. Pvt. Ltd. 207 ITR 364 (Raj)  CIT vs. Kantibhai Revidas Patel 42 taxmann.com 128 (Guj)  ACIT vs. Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom)  Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 84 ITD 320 (Mum. Trib)  Rama Trades vs. ITO 25 ITO 599 (Pat. Trib) TM  ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwani Rai 17 SOT 380 (Chd.Trib.)  Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT 13 TTJ 42 (Ahd.Trib) 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the assessment order, submission of assessee and the other materials placed before hi…

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Mahendra Champaklal Mehta, Surat

In the result, IT(SS)A No

ITA 31/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 06/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 254(1)

…akeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)  CIT Vs Maulikumar K. Shah 307 ITR 137 (Guj)  Govindbhai N. Patel Vs DCIT 41 taxmann.com 147 (Guj)  CIT Vs Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 83 taxmann.com 161 (Bom)  ACIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom)  CIT Vs Anil Khandelwal (2015) 93 CCH 0042 (Del)  CIT Vs S.M. Aggarwal 162 Taxman 3 (Del)  CIT Vs Praveen Juneja ITA No. 56/2017 (Delhi HC)  CIT Vs Vineeta Gupta 46 taxmann.com 439 (Del) 17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We have also deliberated on the case laws relied by the low…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2092/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…pers did not belong to her. xiii. It is the settled principle of law that no additions could be made in the above facts more so where no statement was of following judgements:- a. T.S. Venkatesan v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) b. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, 97 ITR 696 (Bom HC) c. Saif Ali Khan Mansurali [2012] 13 ITR(T) 204 (Mum.) d. Smt. K.V.Lakshmi Savitri Devi, 30 taxmann.com 117 (Hyd- Trib.) e. Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal, 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.) 12. The AO‟s observation that “the notings were not mere scribbling made during the day to day activity. There was a continuous flow of cash throughout the y…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2091/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…pers did not belong to her. xiii. It is the settled principle of law that no additions could be made in the above facts more so where no statement was of following judgements:- a. T.S. Venkatesan v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) b. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, 97 ITR 696 (Bom HC) c. Saif Ali Khan Mansurali [2012] 13 ITR(T) 204 (Mum.) d. Smt. K.V.Lakshmi Savitri Devi, 30 taxmann.com 117 (Hyd- Trib.) e. Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal, 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.) 12. The AO‟s observation that “the notings were not mere scribbling made during the day to day activity. There was a continuous flow of cash throughout the y…

Raju Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2090/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 23(4)(b)

…pers did not belong to her. xiii. It is the settled principle of law that no additions could be made in the above facts more so where no statement was of following judgements:- a. T.S. Venkatesan v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal.) b. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, 97 ITR 696 (Bom HC) c. Saif Ali Khan Mansurali [2012] 13 ITR(T) 204 (Mum.) d. Smt. K.V.Lakshmi Savitri Devi, 30 taxmann.com 117 (Hyd- Trib.) e. Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal, 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.) 12. The AO‟s observation that “the notings were not mere scribbling made during the day to day activity. There was a continuous flow of cash throughout the y…