Anil Jaggi v. ACIT

89 Taxmann.com 266Reported decision2018#4548 most cited

What is Anil Jaggi v. ACIT authority for?

Additions made on account of alleged on-money payments for property purchases are invalid if not supported by adequate material, especially when based on seized electronic data without corroboration.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Anil Jaggi v. ACIT · section 69B · on-money · property purchase · seized pen drive · deleted addition · Lakeview developers · validity of addition

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 13(1)Section 132(4)Section 144C(13)Section 148ASection 151A

Issues it is cited on

circle ratesection 69bon-moneysection 132(1)loose paperssection 151(1)change of opinionpreponderance of probabilityescapement of incomeregular assessmentsection 151reason to believe

Judgments citing Anil Jaggi v. ACIT

ACIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ms Jayanti K Punjabi, Mumbai

ITA 463/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pinisetty, D.R
Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 292

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACIT- 13(3)(1), Ms. Jayanti K. Punjabi, Room No.229/219, 6 Bhooshan Apartments, 2nd Floor, 15 Ramkrishna Mission Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, M.K. Road, Khar (West), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 052 PAN: AGGPP4222K (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.139/M/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.463/M/2020) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Jayanti K. Punjabi, DCIT- 13(3)(2) [earlier 6 Bhooshan Apartments, DCIT -13(3)(1)], 15 Ramkrishna Mission Aayakar Bhavan,…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-29(1), Mumbai vs. Balkrishna R. Chavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 4905/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleacit – 29(1) V. Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan Room No. 108, C-10 A-16, Trupti, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 081 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aacpc 9776 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.107/Mum/2019 [Arising Out Of Ita No.4905/Mum/2017 (A.Y: 2007-08) Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan Acit – 29(1) V. A-16, Trupti, Room No. 108, C-10, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 081 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aacpc 9776 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. SivaramFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra
Section 132(4)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT – 29(1) v. Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan Room No. 108, C-10 A-16, Trupti, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 081 Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 PAN: AACPC 9776 H (Appellant) (Respondent) CO NO.107/MUM/2019 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4905/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2007-08) Shri Balakrishna R. Chavan ACIT – 29(1) v. A-16, Trupti, Room No. 108, C-10, Mahatma Phule Road, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Mulund (E), Bandra Kurla Complex,…

Jagdish Lalwani As Legal Heir of Late Smt. Koshy Lalwani, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 6881/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleshri Jagdish Lalwani V. Income Tax Officer As Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Koshy Lalwani Ward 2(2) 2401, Royce, Rodas Enclave, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Hiranandani Estate, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Ghodbundar Road Kalyan (West), Thane – 400 607 Thane – 421 301 Pan: Aakpl 5060 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neha Paranjpe Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 132(4)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Jagdish Lalwani v. Income Tax Officer As Legal Heir of Late Smt. Koshy Lalwani Ward 2(2) 2401, Royce, Rodas Enclave, 2nd floor, Mohan Plaza, Hiranandani Estate, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Ghodbundar Road Kalyan (west), Thane – 400 607 Thane – 421 301 PAN: AAKPL 5060 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neha Paranjpe Department by : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra Date of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.04.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM…

Indu Jain, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 43(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 682/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, Ito, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 Indu Jain, ITO, Ward- 43(4), B- 144, Phase- V, Sector- 54, New Delhi. Vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. PAN : ACIPJ6875G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M. R. Sahu, CA Department by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR : 19-07-2018 Date of hearing Date of pronouncement : 17-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2016 of CIT(A)- 15, Delhi relating to assessment year 2007-08. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, ar…

Priyank Pradeep Agarwal P.A., Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6883/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal/For Respondent: Shri PR Choudhary, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…n was based on contents of pen drive which was seized from the residence of an ex e-employee of the Hiranandani group of cases. In Similar Circumstances, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal in the case of Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 266 (Mumbai-Trib.) deleted the addition by observing in para 14 as under:- “14. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the ground that the assessee had made a payment of "on money" for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have p…

Vijaykumar Srinivasan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal Assessee is allowed

ITA 7363/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: P.R. Chauhan, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)

…n was based on contents of pen drive which was seized from the residence of an ex e-employee of the Hiranandani group of cases. In Similar Circumstances, according to the learned Counsel for the assessee, the Tribunal in the case of Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 266 (Mumbai-Trib.) deleted the addition by observing in para 14 as under:- “14. We shall now take up the case of the assessee on merits and deliberate on the validity of the addition of Rs. 2.23 crore made by the A.O on the 4 ground that the assessee had made a payment of "on money" for purchase of flats from M/s Lakeview developers. We have…