Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO

390 ITR 189High Court2017#2363 most cited

What is Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation. Corroborative material or documentary evidence is essential to support any adverse decision against the assessee.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal · Section 132(4) · Section 132 · Section 153A · statement during search · corroborative evidence · sole reliance on statement · addition based on admission · search assessment · evidence collection

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69ASection 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 65(b)section 181section 194qillegal paymentretraction of statementsection 158bb(1)business transfer agreementsection 193section 65b(4)

Judgments citing Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…okshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Raj…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 26/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…(2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board's Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be placed on obtaining confessions in the s…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board's Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be placed on obtaining confessions in the state…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…(2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 36 of 47 g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board’s Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

ITA 23/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) Page 35 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board's Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be pla…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…(2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 36 of 47 g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board’s Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be…

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…(2016) 290 CTR 263 (Del.) ii. CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal (2015) 379 ITR 367 (Del.) iii. PCIT v. PGF Ltd. in ITA No. 528/2019 dated 14.11.2022 (Del.) iv. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC) v. CIT v. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ITO v. Ramachandra Setty & Sons (2024) 163 taxmann.com 666 (Bang. - Trib.) ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 Page 36 of 47 g. The appellant also places reliance on the Board’s Circular in F. No. 286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10.03.2003 wherein the CBDT has given categorical directions to the departmental officer that undue emphasis should not be…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, all the all the appeals filed by the assessee is is partly allowed

ITA 1396/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…Ld. AR of the assessee e Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Anand on the decision on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of jurisdictional High Court in the case of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189 390 ITR 189)(Mad) to be of relevance, wherein it to be of relevance, wherein it was held that, unless the was held that, unless the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of t statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act is corroborated by Act is corroborated by documentary evidence, such statement alone such statement alone cannot be the…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1395/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…vidence, which as discussed\nin the foregoing, is absent in the present case. Instead, we find the\nreliance placed by the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Anand on the decision\nof the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S.\nJayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189)(Mad) to be of relevance, wherein it\nwas held that, unless the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the\nAct is corroborated by documentary evidence, such statement alone\ncannot be the sole basis for making additions in the assessment\norder. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court is as under:-\n\n“19. While adverting to the abov…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1394/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…th evidence, which as discussed in the foregoing, is absent in the present case. Instead, we find the reliance placed by the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Anand on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189)(Mad) to be of relevance, wherein it was held that, unless the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act is corroborated by documentary evidence, such statement alone cannot be the sole basis for making additions in the assessment. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court is as under:- “19. While adverting to the above, we are of…

MOHANLAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1180/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…nce, which as discussed \nin the foregoing, is absent in the present case. Instead, we find the \nreliance placed by the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Anand on the decision \nof the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. S. \nJayalakshmi Ammal (390 ITR 189)(Mad) to be of relevance, wherein it \nwas held that, unless the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the \nAct is corroborated by documentary evidence, such statement alone \ncannot be the sole basis for making additions in the assessment order. The \nrelevant findings of the Hon’ble High Court is as under:-\n“19. While adverting to the ab…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1,, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…1 (2008) also supports the contention that merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not be subjected to addition unless & until some corroborative evidences is found in support of such addition. 4.1.9 In the case of CIT vs Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) Hon'ble Madras High Court has held as under: "we are of the considered view that for deciding any issue against the assessee the authorities under the IT Act 1961 have to consider as to whether there is any corroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating documentary evidence then statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT A…

INDEX LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed

ITA 4641/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

…the additions in both the years for the reasons\ndiscussed above.\"\n(Emphasis added)\nIt is respectfully submitted that only statements of parties cannot be the\nbasis of addition without any corroborative evidence. In CIT v Smt.\nS.Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189(Mad)(HC) it is held as under:\n\"19. While adverting to the above, we are of the considered view that,\nfor deciding any issue, against the assessee, the Authorities under the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 have to consider, as to whether there is any\ncorroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating\ndocumentary evidence, then statement reco…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3