Ashwani Kumar v. ITO

39 ITD 183High Court1991#853 most cited

What is Ashwani Kumar v. ITO authority for?

For figures in a 'dumb document' to be treated as the assessee's income, the revenue must provide necessary evidence to prove that these figures represent income earned by the assessee and that the alleged documents have materialized into transactions.

122

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ashwani Kumar v. ITO · dumb document · revenue evidence · income earned · materialised transactions · corroborative evidence · undisclosed receipts · section 132(4)

Also reported as

250 ITR 327

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 263Section 69CSection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesplace of effective managementsection 6(3)section 127(1)voluntary admissionlegal expensesdumb documentssection 158bbsection 132(4a)section 158b(b)section 269tonus of proof

Judgments citing Ashwani Kumar v. ITO

Birendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Dharmendra Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 710/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 709/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Ramesh Chandra Parashar, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Dabra vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Lalta Prasad Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Khemraj Singh Chauhan, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

….C. Shukhla (1998) Taxmann.com 2155(SC) (ii) Chuharmal V/s Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 172 TR 250/251 (SC) (iii) Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd V/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 70TTJ (Ahd) 122 (iv) Ashwin Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) (v) Nem Chand Daga V/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 1 SOT 515 (Delhi) (vi) S.P. Goyal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM) (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Maulikumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj.) (viii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) (ix) Assistant Comm…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…nkar Khetan v/s ACIT (1999) 107 Taxmann (Magzine) 44 (Nagpur) 95 21 CIT v/s R.Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 179 (Raj.) 95-96 22 Jagdamba Rice mills v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 67 TTJ Chd) 838 96 23 Ashwani Kumar V/s Income Tax Officer (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) 96-97 24 A. Sadasivam v. ACIT (2002) 255 ITR 1 (cal) (AT) 97 25 T.S. Venkatesan v. ACIT 74 TTJ 298 (Cal) 97-102 26 M/s Peeyush Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT 28 Tax World 57 (Jp) 102 27 ITO v. M.A. Chidambaram (mad) 63 ITD p. 203 102-103 28 Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. DCIT (JP) (1999) 68 ITD 312 (Jp) 103 29 Kishan Chand che…

ACIT, CC-44, Mumbai vs. Shilpa Sunil Majithia, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals and assessee’s cross objections are dismissed

ITA 5138/MUM/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2016AY 1995-96
Section 268A

…of the Act. Similarly, the other provisions of the Act cannot interfere with the scheme or the working of section 132 or its provisions. Approving the decisions in the case of Pushkar Narain Saraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), it held therefore that the presumption u/s. 132(4A) would not be available to the assessing authority for the purpose of framing the assessment under the Act, for which only the regular provisions would prevail. The said decision, as shall be evident, has a clear and direct bearing, in ratio, on the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional H…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…lect any details about the transaction of the assessee and there was no co- relation with other material found either during the course of search or on investigation thereafter. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1997) 39 ITD 183 (Del) " Neena Syal’s (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chdd.) " Elite Developers Vs DCIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) " Addl. CIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) " Saif Ali Khan Mansurali Vs ACIT (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum) ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 23 Mukesh Garg " D. S. Agen…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…lect any details about the transaction of the assessee and there was no co- relation with other material found either during the course of search or on investigation thereafter. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1997) 39 ITD 183 (Del) " Neena Syal’s (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chdd.) " Elite Developers Vs DCIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) " Addl. CIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) " Saif Ali Khan Mansurali Vs ACIT (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum) ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 23 Mukesh Garg " D. S. Agen…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 435/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal. & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Anantharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 142Section 69

…Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR IT (SC) 1. CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 144 ITR 225 (SC) 2. Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. vs. JCIT 245 ITR 84 (Guj.) 3. ITO vs. Sheo Narain Jaiswal 176 ITR 352 (Patna) 4. CIT vs. Girnish Choudhary 256 ITR 919 (Del.) 5. CIT Ashwini Kumar vs. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi Bench Hon’ble 6. Tribunal) 19.1.6 Besides the above, I also place reliance in the judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 where it was held as under: "It is not enough merely to prove that the books have been regularly kept in the course of business and…

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8339/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…x Court in P. R. Metrani vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) had an occasion to consider the scope of the search and seizure proceedings under the Act. Approving the decisions in Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), and the reversing the decision in (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. P. R. Metrani (HUF) [2001] 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it clarified this scope to be very limited, i.e., restricted to a summary assessment toward retaining sufficient assets to meet the demand of tax and/or penalty that may arise in assessment. Sect…

Shri Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkatta vs. Dy.CIT.C.C.2, Mumbai

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3820/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Karia &For Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(1)Section 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…x Court in P. R. Metrani vs. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209 (SC) had an occasion to consider the scope of the search and seizure proceedings under the Act. Approving the decisions in Pushkar Narain Sarraf vs. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388 (All) and Daya Chand vs. CIT [2001] 250 ITR 327 (Del), and the reversing the decision in (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2007-08) Kashinath Tapuriah vs. Dy. CIT CIT vs. P. R. Metrani (HUF) [2001] 251 ITR 244 (Kar), it clarified this scope to be very limited, i.e., restricted to a summary assessment toward retaining sufficient assets to meet the demand of tax and/or penalty that may arise in assessment. Sect…

Prafulla Kumar Ghosh, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Malda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 686/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2006-07 (Appellant ) (Respondent) Prafulla Kumar Ghosh -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-2, Malda Malda (Pan:Adhpg 8048 C) For The Appellant : Shri K.M.Roy, Fca For The Respondent : Shri S.S.Alam, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2015. Order Per Shri M.Balaganesh, Am 1. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Cita In Appeal No. 279/Mld/Cit(A)/Jal/08-09 Dated 02.03.2012 For The Asst Year 2006-07 Arising Out Of The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Alam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69B

…the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati vs Sushila Mahendra Nanavati AIR 1965 SC 364 and various other tribunal decisions mentioned below:- ITO vs Ghanshyambhai R.Thakkar (1996) 56 TTJ (Ahd.) 460 Ashwani Kumar vs ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) Kishanchand Sobhrajmal vs ACIT (1992) 41 ITD 97 (Jaipur) Devilal Gherilal Shah vs DCIT (1995) 127 CTR (Trib.) (Ahd.) 135 Though the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of credence of the seized document in the form of loose paper and its usage thereon in the search assessment proceedings, the analogy could be drawn from the afore…