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

Q: How many judgments cite Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO (390 ITR 189), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 147, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 37(1).

390 ITR 189High Court2017#2341 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 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 147 Section 132 Section 153A Section 37(1)Section 69A Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

gaar section 132(2)section 132(1)(a)section 65(b)section 181 section 194q illegal payment retraction of statement section 158bb(1)business transfer agreement section 193 section 65b(4)

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

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai vs. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1765/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 1764/MUM/2022 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Netalter Software Ltd DCIT Central Circle-7(2) 5, 2nd Floor, Jalaram Room No. 655, 6 th Floor, Niwas, Ganesh Gawade Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai- 400 080 Mumbai- 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AACCN1053B Assessee by : Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR. Date of hearing: 10.11.2022 Date of pronouncement: 21.11.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are three ap…

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Netalter Software Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1764/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

Nilesh M. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5116/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh/ ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…during the assessment proceeding, this material has to be completely ignored.” Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)] (ii). CIT v. Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal [(2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad)] “2B. If no copy of the statements as referred in the assessment order and ultimately relied upon by the A.O. to support the addition were not confronted to the Appellant during the assessment proceeding and no cross — examination granted of the concerned persons, such statement has to be ignored completely. Therefore, it is not permissibl…

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…Page 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.1732-1733/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2013-14& 2016-17) M/s Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Dy. Commissioner of Income- 401, Hall mark Business Plaza, Vs. tax-Central Circle 6(2), Off. Western Express Highway, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Kalanagar, Bandra East, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN No. AAACE2460K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd tax-Central Circle 6(2), Vs. 401, Hall mark B…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar(HUF), Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 699/VIZ/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…atement that too, which is retracted from the assessee cannot constitute the basis for an order under section I588C of the Act. Kind attention is invited to another judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. Smt.S.JayalakshmiAmmal reported in 390 ITR 189. The observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court at page 197 are extracted below for kind consideration of the Hon'ble Court “If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, or arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If th…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar(HUF), Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…a & Another [91 ITR 18 (Supreme Court)]; (ii) K.T. M.S. Mohammed & Another –vs.- Union of India [197 ITR 196 (Supreme Court at page 213)]; (iii) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. –vs.- CIT, Dhanbad [257 ITR 359 (Jharkhand)]; (iv) CIT –vs.- Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal 390 ITR 189 (Madras at page 197); (v) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata –vs.- Ajanta Footcare (India) (P) Limited [84 Taxmann.com 109 (Calcutta)]. 12. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that there is no conclusive proof to show that the loose sheets found and seized from the bank locker of the assessee were from the same diar…

Shri Kushal Kumar Lunawat, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh (CIT)

Section 132(4)

…e basis of evidence gathered from extraneous source and on basis of statement or documents received subsequent to search. Not forming part of undisclosed for block period. AO has no jurisdiction to make additions. (iv) CIT Vs. Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad): Block assessment. Corroborative evidence needed in case of statement. Finding that additions were not sustainable- justified. (v) Pr. CIT Vs. Devangi Alias Rupa (2017) 394 ITR 184 (Guj): Assessment of undisclosed income- condition precedent- assessment must be on basis of discovery of incriminating material during search. (8) Net weight o…