CBI v. V.C. Shukla

3 SCC 410Supreme Court of India1998#161 most cited

What is CBI v. V.C. Shukla authority for?

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

442

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2003 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CBI v. V.C. Shukla · evidentiary value · loose sheets · dumb documents · Section 34 Evidence Act · Section 292C · admissibility of evidence · books of account · uncorroborated evidence · Section 132(4A)

Also reported as

138 Taxmann 1903 AIR 410

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153CSection 292CSection 153ASection 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

dumb documentssection 132(4a)section 292csection 34section 269tsection 158bdloose papersonus of proofsection 269sincome tax settlement commissiondocuments seizedsection 269ss

Judgments citing CBI v. V.C. Shukla

DCIT, CC Gzbd, Ghaziabad vs. Yugank Goyal, Ghaziabad

ITA 1808/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

DCIT CC, Gzbd vs. Bankey Behari Goyal, Agra

ITA 1807/DEL/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

Maanya Goyal, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Gzbd

ITA 1536/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

Bankey Behari Goyal, Agra (U.P) vs. DCIT, Central Circle Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh

ITA 1535/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

Yugank Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

ITA 1534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

Ani Bala Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaizabad

ITA 1533/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…value of the property, would not be justified and against the law laid down by the various judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court and order of the Tribunal including judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case CBI vs V C Shukla reported as (1998) 3 SCC 410. 5. Replying to the above the Ld. DR place strong reliance on the order of the A.O. as well as the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the incriminating material clearly revealed that the assessee has made payment of own money for purchase of shop no. 385 in the Habitat Centre Indirapuram, Ghaziabad therefore the addition may kindly be sustained. However…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…the same with the assessee. It also contended that the seized documents should be considered as dumb documents. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- a) Addl.CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) b) CBI Vs. Shri V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) c) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (ITA No. 2588/Ahd/2012 dated 15.2.2013) d) DCIT Vs. H.S. Chandramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012 dated 30.8.2013) 28 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group e) M/s. Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 388/LKW/2013 dated 10.12.2014) f) DCIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 413/LKW/2012 dated 26.2.2015) g) M/s…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…the same with the assessee. It also contended that the seized documents should be considered as dumb documents. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- a) Addl.CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) b) CBI Vs. Shri V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) c) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (ITA No. 2588/Ahd/2012 dated 15.2.2013) d) DCIT Vs. H.S. Chandramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012 dated 30.8.2013) 28 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group e) M/s. Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 388/LKW/2013 dated 10.12.2014) f) DCIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 413/LKW/2012 dated 26.2.2015) g) M/s…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…the same with the assessee. It also contended that the seized documents should be considered as dumb documents. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- a) Addl.CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) b) CBI Vs. Shri V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) c) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (ITA No. 2588/Ahd/2012 dated 15.2.2013) d) DCIT Vs. H.S. Chandramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012 dated 30.8.2013) 28 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group e) M/s. Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 388/LKW/2013 dated 10.12.2014) f) DCIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 413/LKW/2012 dated 26.2.2015) g) M/s…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…the same with the assessee. It also contended that the seized documents should be considered as dumb documents. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- a) Addl.CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) b) CBI Vs. Shri V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) c) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (ITA No. 2588/Ahd/2012 dated 15.2.2013) d) DCIT Vs. H.S. Chandramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012 dated 30.8.2013) 28 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group e) M/s. Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 388/LKW/2013 dated 10.12.2014) f) DCIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 413/LKW/2012 dated 26.2.2015) g) M/s…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

In the result, all the revenue appeals are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133A

…the same with the assessee. It also contended that the seized documents should be considered as dumb documents. In this regard the assessee placed reliance on the following case laws :- a) Addl.CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshkar (97 ITR 696) b) CBI Vs. Shri V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410) c) Shri Mustafamiya H. Sheikh (ITA No. 2588/Ahd/2012 dated 15.2.2013) d) DCIT Vs. H.S. Chandramouli (ITA No. 1551/Bang/2012 dated 30.8.2013) 28 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers Group e) M/s. Mohd. Ayub Mohd. Yakub Perfumers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 388/LKW/2013 dated 10.12.2014) f) DCIT Vs. Pawan Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 413/LKW/2012 dated 26.2.2015) g) M/s…

The Dy. CIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. Shri Saurabhkumar Mukutlal Gupta, Anand

ITA 1589/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

…the principles of natural justice, equity & fair play. In the case of Hitesh B. Patel V. ACIT in ITA No.2778/Ahd/2012, the plea of the assessee was as under:- "5. On the strength of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410, it was contended by the assessee that on the basis of diary recovered from a third party, the prosecution cannot establish the guilt of any person, viz. recipient. The assessee had never acknowledged receipt of any payment from PSP. His signature is not available either in the diary or in other loose paper. No person would make a huge payment with…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…d lead us nowhere. Thus, the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material. The High Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in CBI vs. VC. Shukla 3 SCC 410 laying down- “File containing loose sheets of papers are not ‘book’ and hence entries therein are not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.” It was held that the document was a dumb document and led nowhere. Appeal filed by revenue was dismissed. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, vs. Atam Valves (P.) Limited 184 Taxmann…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…d lead us nowhere. Thus, the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material. The High Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in CBI vs. VC. Shukla 3 SCC 410 laying down- “File containing loose sheets of papers are not ‘book’ and hence entries therein are not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.” It was held that the document was a dumb document and led nowhere. Appeal filed by revenue was dismissed. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, vs. Atam Valves (P.) Limited 184 Taxmann…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…d lead us nowhere. Thus, the Tribunal rightly deleted the addition of Rs. 48 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed income on the basis of seized material. The High Court referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in CBI vs. VC. Shukla 3 SCC 410 laying down- “File containing loose sheets of papers are not ‘book’ and hence entries therein are not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.” It was held that the document was a dumb document and led nowhere. Appeal filed by revenue was dismissed. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, vs. Atam Valves (P.) Limited 184 Taxmann…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 1583/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 1582/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

ITO -33 (1) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kalpesh C.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are In the result, all the three appeals of the dismissed

ITA 1581/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9Th Floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aajps 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/W Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO-33(1)(1), Shri Kalpesh C. Shah, Kautilya Bhavan, 9th floor, Room Flat No. 904, Rajvaibhav Tower- No. 945, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. 2, Dahanukar Wadi, Mahavir Bandra (E), Nagar, Kandiwali(W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. PAN No. AAJPS 8486 R Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mrs. Usha Gaikwad, DR Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, Sr. Adv. & A/w Om Kandalkar, Adv. Date of Hearing : 21/09/…

Everest Organics Ltd vs. The Commissioner of I.T., Hyderabad

ITTA/9/2005HC Telangana21 Sept 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 143(1)(a)

…in accordance with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic tenet of rule of law: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you.” Investigation into every accusation made against 17 (1998) 3 SCC 410 20 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the government agencies. 4) In this proceeding we are…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Mansukh T. Timbadia, Raigad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 72/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Smt. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ents as those were not containing the name of assessee, nature of transaction, quantum involved and period of transaction and she referred to case laws in the case of CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary reported in 296 ITR 619 (Delhi HC), CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 (SC), Common Cause Vs. Union of India reported in 77 taxmann.com 245(SC), ACIT Vs. Shailesh S Shah reported in 63 ITD 153 (Mumbai ITAT) and Omar Salary Mohmad SAit Vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 151 (SC). 14. Further, she argued that there was no evidence brought on record by the AO and CIT-A to prove the assessee has received cash payment. She referr…