Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Satya Pal Wassan

295 ITR 9High Court2007#12571 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 132B Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 145(3)Section 153A Section 2(22)(e)Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

retracted statement dumb documents loose papers documents seized section 131 unexplained investment unexplained cash credit section 153 undisclosed income search and seizure section 153a section 15

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Satya Pal Wassan

Bsst India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 4448/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4448/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Bsst India Private Limited, Commissioner Of Income Tax D-586, Govind Puram, Vs. (Appeals), Ghaziabad. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Pan No.Aafcb8294F (Nfac), Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…end at the hands of deeming shareholder, then the Legislature would have inserted deeming provision in respect of shareholder as well, that has not happened. The above view has been upheld in the following catena of decisions: a. CIT vs. Raj Kumar Singh & Co. 295 ITR 9 (All) (Jurisdictional High Court); b. PCIT vs. Verizon (India) P. Ltd. ITA No.555/2019 dated 22.08.2019 (Del) where besides the above decisions, the decision in case of National Travel Services vs. CIT 401 ITR 154 (SC) was also relied to the extent the Ankitech P. Ltd. (supra) decision relates to expression “shareholder” which include beneficial o…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Sunil Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Vs. 395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside Central Circle-2, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…be used against the assessee. 3.3.4 This is settled legal position that any ‘dumb document’ cannot be used as an evidence to draw an adverse inference against the assessee. Case laws supporting this proposition are as under:- ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR 9 (AT) 352 (Jabalpur): Held that “the crux of these decisions is that a document found during the course of search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transactions of the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Any gap in the various components as mentioned in section 4 of the Income…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…09 Addition cannot be made on the basis of a dumb document or on the basis of entries found recorded on a paper seized during search without conducting any enquiry from the concerned party. (iv) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Satya Pal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR 9 AT 352 (Jabalpur) A document found during the course of a search must be a speaking one and without any second interpretation, must reflect all the details about the transaction of the assessee in the relevant Assessment Year. Any gap in the various components for the charge of tax must be filled up by the Assessing Officer through investigation an…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Baheti Rohoplast Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2583/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr. D.R

Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

…pplication. This was confirmed by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the amount was not assessable under section 2(22)(e).” 7.2. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Raj Kumar Singh and Co. (2007) 295 ITR 9 (All) held as under : “Held. (i) that clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act as it existed provided that if the loan is received by the shareholder, it is only then that the loan can be deemed to be dividend in his hands. The assessee-firm was not the shareholder of J and the partners of the firm were the shareholders in the books of the company…

Shiv Transport & Travels, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-56(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 889/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Gayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)Section 77A

…PIPL. It was argued that since the Assessee is not a shareholder the deeming provisions of Sec.2(22)( e) of the Act were not applicable. In this regard reference was made to the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Co. 295 ITR 9 (All), wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that Clause (e) of s. 2(22) of the Act as it existed clearly provided that if the loan is received by the shareholder, it is only then the said loan can be deemed to be dividend in his hand. In the case before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, admittedly, the assessee-firm was not the shareholder…

CIT vs. National Travel Services

Appeal Is allowed set

ITA - 309 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jul 2011

Section 2

…* . . .. ' ITA 223/2010,219/2010,1204/2010,30.9/2011 . Page 15 of 28 2011:DHC:14828-DB 15. Mr. Syali also relied .upon,.the judgment of Allahabad. 1 ligh Court in the case of CommSsssoiner of Isifome-T^K Vs. lRsi] i . . , e:Court held Kiemsir Smgh & €o, 295 ITR 9 3 fi'i :i!on 2 (22) ,m was not oan and the . (All) wherein' tf that the conditions stipulated in Clause (e) ofjS of the Act were not satisfied where the assessed the shareholder of a company which gave the' partners of the .firm were • shareholders in the books company. This judgment was rendered following Supreme ■Court judgment in the case of Com…