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 366,314 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

Arun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…only. This tribunal co-ordinate bench’s decision Nishan Constructions Vs. ACIT ITA No.1502/Ahd/2015; after considering the hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Common Cause, Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) holds that such loose sheets deserves to be treated as a dumb documents only since not revealing full details about the dates containing lack of further particulars and therefore, ought not to be made basis of an addition. Similar other judicial precedents ACIT Vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd., (2017) [184 TTJ 469] (Mumbai) & ITO Vs. Kranti Impex Pvt.…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1)2, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 457/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…only. This tribunal co-ordinate bench’s decision Nishan Constructions Vs. ACIT ITA No.1502/Ahd/2015; after considering the hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Common Cause, Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) holds that such loose sheets deserves to be treated as a dumb documents only since not revealing full details about the dates containing lack of further particulars and therefore, ought not to be made basis of an addition. Similar other judicial precedents ACIT Vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd., (2017) [184 TTJ 469] (Mumbai) & ITO Vs. Kranti Impex Pvt.…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 456/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…only. This tribunal co-ordinate bench’s decision Nishan Constructions Vs. ACIT ITA No.1502/Ahd/2015; after considering the hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in Common Cause, Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) and CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) holds that such loose sheets deserves to be treated as a dumb documents only since not revealing full details about the dates containing lack of further particulars and therefore, ought not to be made basis of an addition. Similar other judicial precedents ACIT Vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd., (2017) [184 TTJ 469] (Mumbai) & ITO Vs. Kranti Impex Pvt.…

Shri. D. V. Sadanada Gowda, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 895/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.895/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 Sri.D.V.Sadananda Gowda The Asst.Commissioner of 15-22-1390/4, Kamala, 2nd Cross Income-tax, Circle 1(3)(1) v. Lower Bendoor Bengaluru. Mangalore – 575 002. PAN : AGMPG0756F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.U.S.Yogesh Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Date of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Pronouncement : 30.03.2021 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kota vs. Shri Ganpati Developers, Kota

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 1348/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1348/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 A.C.I.T., Cuke M/S Shri Ganpati Developers, Vs. Circle-1, C-150, Road No. 5, I.P.I.A., Kota. Kota. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 8967 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…SOT 250(Mumbai) has held that the addition made by the AO based on the loose paper, which is not a conclusive evidence and therefore, the same is not sufficient for making the addition. The apex court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 has laid down that :- "File containing loose sheets of papers are not book and hence entries therein are not admissible under section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872." In Riveria Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) in ITA No. 250/Mum/2013 86 ITA No. 2748/Mum/2016 Date of Judgement/Order: 27/10/2017 held that- Assessing officer is not correct…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3994/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…admitted by an assessee for it to be assessed, then the burden to establish that such income is chargeable to tax is on the assessing officer. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla &Ors.: (1998) 3 SCC 410, wherein the Court held that the contents of a diary impounded from a third party could not by itself be the basis of making any addition and the same requires corroboration by independent material/ evidence. The said decision has been, followed in Common Cause (A registered Society) vs. Union of India: 394 ITR 220 (SC). It has also been submitted…

Param Dairy Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

In the result, for both the years, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3993/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Shri RohitFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 40A(3)Section 69C

…admitted by an assessee for it to be assessed, then the burden to establish that such income is chargeable to tax is on the assessing officer. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the apex Court in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla &Ors.: (1998) 3 SCC 410, wherein the Court held that the contents of a diary impounded from a third party could not by itself be the basis of making any addition and the same requires corroboration by independent material/ evidence. The said decision has been, followed in Common Cause (A registered Society) vs. Union of India: 394 ITR 220 (SC). It has also been submitted…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…os. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) e. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 15. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered the evidentiary value of any loose sheets or diary found with the party where search was conducted, which can be used against third party. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are as under: “From the above definitions of 'account' it is evident that if it has to be narrowly construed to…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…on between the assessee and that party. For the above proposition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following decisions : a. Bombay H.C. Lata Mangeshkar [97 ITR 696] b. Straptex (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [84 ITD 320 (Mum)] c. CBI v. V. C. Shukla [3 SCC 410 (SC)] d. Prarthana Construction P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.)] e. Unique Organizers & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 147 (Ahd.)] * * * * * * * 55. Since in the instant case the assessee from the very beginning has denied to have received any such payment from M/s. Dhariwal group through Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta and since no incriminatin…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…on between the assessee and that party. For the above proposition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following decisions : a. Bombay H.C. Lata Mangeshkar [97 ITR 696] b. Straptex (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [84 ITD 320 (Mum)] c. CBI v. V. C. Shukla [3 SCC 410 (SC)] d. Prarthana Construction P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.)] e. Unique Organizers & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 147 (Ahd.)] * * * * * * * 55. Since in the instant case the assessee from the very beginning has denied to have received any such payment from M/s. Dhariwal group through Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta and since no incriminatin…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…on between the assessee and that party. For the above proposition the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the following decisions : a. Bombay H.C. Lata Mangeshkar [97 ITR 696] b. Straptex (India) P. Ltd. v. DCIT [84 ITD 320 (Mum)] c. CBI v. V. C. Shukla [3 SCC 410 (SC)] d. Prarthana Construction P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.)] e. Unique Organizers & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [118 Taxman 147 (Ahd.)] * * * * * * * 55. Since in the instant case the assessee from the very beginning has denied to have received any such payment from M/s. Dhariwal group through Mr. Sohan Raj Mehta and since no incriminatin…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…contented that no addition can be made merely based on the loose sheets in the absence of any corroborative material. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…contented that no addition can be made merely based on the loose sheets in the absence of any corroborative material. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1468/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)

…contented that no addition can be made merely based on the loose sheets in the absence of any corroborative material. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd

ITA/2/2020HC Delhi08 Jan 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 21(4)Section 6(5)Section 8

…CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 1 of 56 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 06.03.2025 Pronounced on: 12.03.2025 + CRL. A. 02/2020 NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, Mr. Mohit Gupta and Mr. Sagar Rawat, Advs. versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshai Malik, SPP, Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Mr. Karl P. Rustomkhan, Mr. Udbhav Sinha, Mr.Siddhant Gupta, Mr. Khawar Salim, Adv…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of Tribunal was confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court vide its order dated 06.02.2019 wherein the Hon’ble High Court placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) and another judgment of Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A registered Society) vs. Union of India (2017) 30 ITJ 197 (SC) (supra) held as follows; “6. The Tribunal has considered the aforesaid judgment while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. The Apex Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) versus Union of India rep…

M/S. Gl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

…tion involved in the whole contracts. He extensively referred to paragraph number 31 – 62 where there is a detailed examination and cross-examination of each witness. xii. He further relied up on following decisions:- a. Common Cause V UOI b. CBI V V C Shukla 3 SCC 410 c. ACIT V Satyapal Wassan 295 ITR (AT)352 d. ACIT V Ashok Poddar ( Kol) 16 DTR 0055 e. CIT V Praveen Juneja (del) (HC) ITA 57/2017 40. In view of all this argument, he submitted that the action of the learned assessing officer to make addition to the tune of INR 35. 85 crores based on such a rough loose sheet containing scribbles and cancellation i…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nitinbhai Ramchandra Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2005/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2005/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007 D.C.I.T, Nitinbhai Ramchandra Patel Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Ambali Bopal Road, Ahmedabad. Arbaligam, Ahmedbad. Pan: Acrpp9175E

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69

…he course of business. Such evidence would, therefore, be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410. -The revenue would not be justified in resting its case on the loose papers and documents found from the residence of a third party even if such documents contain narration of transaction with the assessee. - The presumption under section 132 (4A) of the Act would not be applicable to a third party from whose possession such papers and documents h…

Shri Gopal Soni, Mandsaur vs. Addll. CIT, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 714/IND/2017[02-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…identiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only and on verge of so many non curable deceases and no one is there to succeed and help him at…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 713/IND/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2001-2002

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

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…identiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only and on verge of so many non curable deceases and no one is there to succeed and help him at…