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

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…d order, nor any adverse material had been brought on record by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his contention that the assessee had paid any underhand money, except the money which had been shown in the sale deed. c) Addl. CIT v. Lata Mngeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) - In this case, the Income Tax Officer came across a sort of a ledger maintained by the firm known as Vasu Films of Madras containing certain entries, which had been seized by the Income Tax Authorities from the premises of that firm at Madras and relying on those entries additions were made. On appeal, Tribunal deleted the additions made w…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…fully relies on the following judicial pronouncements; 15 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the addition…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…fully relies on the following judicial pronouncements; 15 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the addition…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…fully relies on the following judicial pronouncements; 15 IT(SS)A No.132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the addition…

Raghuveer Metal Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, we affirm the findings of the lower authorities in this regard

ITA 566/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)

…TA No. 2321 & 2322/Mum/2013) 11. It was further submitted that no addition could be made on the basis of loose papers found in the premises of a third party and in support, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • Add. CIT vs. Lata Mangeshkar [1947] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) • Kantilal L. Lunkad, L/H Smt. Pushpa K. Lunkad vs. DCIT (ITA No. 725 & 726/PUN/2014) • ITO vs. Shri Pukhraj Soni (ITA No. 585/Ind/2015) 12. Without prejudice to above, it was submitted that even if the calculation is done as per the method followed by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) for making the addition on the basis of document marked as…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Rajesh Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 5364/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)

…receive any interest, therefore, no addition could be made against the assessee. The assessee relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs., 5 ITA.No.5364/Del./2017 Mr. Rajesh Gupta, New Delhi. Miss Lata Mangeshkar [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) It was submitted that since Author of the seized document himself denied to have given any interest, therefore, no addition could be made. The A.O, however, did not accept the contention of assessee and made the addition of Rs.1.90 crores on account of interest paid by the aforesaid parties to the assessee. 4. The assessee challenged the a…

Rajkumar B Agarwal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 421/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.421/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…noting in loose papers found during search proceedings in case of „D Group‟ against the name of assessee. 6.2 The Ld. AR of the assessee further relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 wherein the addition was made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of some entries in the books of third persons. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held that it is settled legal position that simply placing reliance on some loose papers the Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition in absence of other corroborative evidences to that e…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…TR 134 (M.P) Reliance was placed by the assessee on the following judgments; a) Pr. CIT V/s Pukhraj Soni Appeal No. ITA 53 of 2017 (MP) order dated 06.02.19. b) K. P. Varghese Vs. ITO, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (S.C.), c) Addl. CIT Vs. Miss. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). d) Dy. CIT Vs. Mahendra Ambalal Patel (2010) 40 DTR 243 (Guj). e) Heirs & L.Rs of Late Laxman Bhai S. Patel V s.CIT (2008) 327 ITR 290 (Guj). f) Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Vs. CIT (1972) 84 ITR 222 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 (P&H): g) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del). h) Kamta Prasad Dwiv…

The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat vs. Shri Gaurangbhai P. Upadhyay, Surat

In the result, all the above captioned appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 211/SRT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No’S. 208 To 216/Srt/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Gaurangbhai P Upadhyay, Circle-1(3), Surat. 601, Pratisthan Complex, B/H. Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [Pan: Aadpu 5330 N] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 269SSection 271DSection 69C

…DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat Vs. Shri Gaurangbhai P Upadhyay / ITA No’s. 208 to 216/SRT/2017 Page 1 of 10 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No’s. 208 to 216/SRT/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Shri Gaurangbhai P Upadhyay, Circle-1(3), Surat. 601, Pratisthan Complex, B/h. Ram Chowk, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [PAN: AADPU 5330 N] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओरसे /Assessee…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA Dy. CIT, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AADCA3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & CO No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising out of ITA No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. CIT, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. Dr.Ranjan Pai, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C

ITA 891/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Ranjan Pai, The Assistant Commissioner Block No. 1B, Jakkur Of Income Tax, Plantation Village, Vs. Central Circle – 2 (2), Yelahanka Main Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Agbpp2795G Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 19/Bang/2019 (In Ita No. 891/Bang/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 292C

…ssee where seized material is available in this regard. ITA No. 891/Bang/2018 & C.O. No. 19/Bang/2019 Page 2 of 16 4. Whether on facts & circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was correct in relying on the decision in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) and in the case DCIT, New Delhi Vs. Sri Jaswant Singh Chawala (ITR Nos. 3285, 3286/Del/2013 dated 20.03.2015 when facts of the two cases are distinguished for the instant case?” 2. The ld. AR for the assessee has also submitted that the assessee has filed a CO bearing no. 19/Bang/2019 for the following grounds. Tax effect relating Grounds of App…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…xmann.com 384 (Bom) Umacharan Shaw & Bros (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) 100 TTJ MUM Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain & Mrs. Reena Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 I…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…xmann.com 384 (Bom) Umacharan Shaw & Bros (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. v. JCIT (2006) 100 TTJ MUM Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain & Mrs. Reena Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 I…

Shri Rajeev Sharma, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 430/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee”. The above view of Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was…

Smt Anjana Sinha, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 429/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee”. The above view of Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 428/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee”. The above view of Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was…

Smt. Manju Sharma, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 427/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…third party if such documents contained narrations of transactions with the assessee”. The above view of Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…n Bhogilal Chunilal, (supra) and hereinafter will be so referred to], being 'admissions' - and not 'confession' - cannot be used as against Shri Advani or Shri Shukla.‖ iv. Attention is also drawn to the celebrated case of ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar, [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) (pages 375-378 of PB-5) wherein it was has held that mere entries in the accounts of third party regarding payment to the assessee was not sufficient as there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine in absence of any corroborative evidence. The Hon‘ble Bombay H.C. held as under: ―As regards the evidence of the two witnesses on which r…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…n Bhogilal Chunilal, (supra) and hereinafter will be so referred to], being 'admissions' - and not 'confession' - cannot be used as against Shri Advani or Shri Shukla.‖ iv. Attention is also drawn to the celebrated case of ACIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar, [1974] 97 ITR 696 (Bom) (pages 375-378 of PB-5) wherein it was has held that mere entries in the accounts of third party regarding payment to the assessee was not sufficient as there was no guarantee that the entries were genuine in absence of any corroborative evidence. The Hon‘ble Bombay H.C. held as under: ―As regards the evidence of the two witnesses on which r…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member ITA No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs ACIT, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-II, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEFPS6298M ITA No. 1476/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 ITA No. 1477/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 ITA No. 1478/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Smt. Ritu Singal, Vs ACIT, W-29, Gre…