Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master v. Joint Commissioner of Income

83 ITD 102Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#14503 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 69CSection 153C

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master v. Joint Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI MADHUSUDAN M. MUDE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 137/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ussed in the assessment order and remand report dated 14/07/2021 (Dr. S.C. Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782 (All H.C.)), (CIT Vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker)), (PCIT Vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (ITA No. 47/2018)} and {Video Master Vs. JCIT (2002) 83 ITD 102 (Mum)}. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C(T(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee during the course of Madhusudan Marotrao Mude ITA no.132/Nag./2021 ITA no.137/Nag./2021 search proceedings has voluntarily declared the following undisclosed income u/s. 132(4): During the year under consideratio…

MADHUSUDAN MAROTRAO MUDE,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ussed in the assessment order and remand report dated 14/07/2021 (Dr. S.C. Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782 (All H.C.)), (CIT Vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker)), (PCIT Vs. Roshan Lal Sancheti (ITA No. 47/2018)} and {Video Master Vs. JCIT (2002) 83 ITD 102 (Mum)}. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.C(T(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the assessee during the course of Madhusudan Marotrao Mude ITA no.132/Nag./2021 ITA no.137/Nag./2021 search proceedings has voluntarily declared the following undisclosed income u/s. 132(4): During the year under consideratio…

FRANCO -INDIAN PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…l decisions in this regard areas follows 1 Hiralal Maganlal & Co V/s DOT 96 lTD 113 MUM. 2 Rameshchandra & Co V/s CIT 168 ITR 375 (BOM) 3. Hotel Kiran v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master V/S Joint Commissioner of Income- tax 83 ITD 102 It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangodo Rubber Produce co Ltd. V/s State of Kerala 1792 CTYR (SC) 253 has held that, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of the assessment. The bu…

FRANCO INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 226/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…l decisions in this regard areas follows 1 Hiralal Maganlal & Co V/s DOT 96 lTD 113 MUM. 2 Rameshchandra & Co V/s CIT 168 ITR 375 (BOM) 3. Hotel Kiran v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master V/S Joint Commissioner of Income- tax 83 ITD 102 It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangodo Rubber Produce co Ltd. V/s State of Kerala 1792 CTYR (SC) 253 has held that, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of the assessment. The bu…

FRANCO INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…l decisions in this regard areas follows 1 Hiralal Maganlal & Co V/s DOT 96 lTD 113 MUM. 2 Rameshchandra & Co V/s CIT 168 ITR 375 (BOM) 3. Hotel Kiran v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master V/S Joint Commissioner of Income- tax 83 ITD 102 It is pertinent to mention here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangodo Rubber Produce co Ltd. V/s State of Kerala 1792 CTYR (SC) 253 has held that, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of the assessment. The bu…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SUNILKUMAR O KOCHHAR, MUMBAI

ITA 5360/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…action made by him has no meaning at all. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal and Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum); Ramesh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by the assessee before him. “(i) The survey u/s 133A was conducted in an illegal and irregular manner. The survey party resorted to…

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. RENU S. KOCHAR, MUMBAI

ITA 5261/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…action made by him has no meaning at all. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal and Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum); Ramesh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by the assessee before him. “(i) The survey u/s 133A was conducted in an illegal and irregular manner. The survey party resorted to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 82 lTD 453 4. Video Master v. Joint Commissioner of Income (83 ITD 102) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax