How many judgments cite Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT?

89 judgments on BharatTax cite Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT (71 ITD 245), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(2), Section 153A, Section 147, Section 69C, Section 143(3).

Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT

71 ITD 245Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#1274 most cited

What is Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT authority for?

Seized documents and statements used for income additions must be read holistically and not piecemeal. Arbitrary additions based on 'dumb documents' lacking corroboration or containing anomalies are unsustainable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT · Section 132 · Section 153A · Section 292C · seized documents · evidentiary value · read as a whole · dumb documents · loose papers · on-money · arbitrary additions · block assessment

Also reported as

155 Taxmann 270

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 153A Section 147 Section 69C Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)on money receipt percentage completion method preponderance of probability on-money dumb documents assistant director loose papers documents seized block period section 131(1a)section 292c

Judgments citing Chander Mohan Mehta v. ACIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…mity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the additions 97 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. xi) CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) ITAT, PUNE BENCH (1999) 65 TTJ (Pune) 327 : 71 ITD 245 Loose paper indicating money-lending activities showing the amount borrowed and amount lent—These loose papers do not indicate the name of assessee—Therefore, the loose papers by themselves lead to no conclusion and have no evidentiary value—However, it has evidentiary value because of statement of assessee under s. 131 admitting money-lending act…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

M/S.Jawahar Saw Mills Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

ITA 1915/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1915/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: Sh. S. M. MakhijaFor Respondent: Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1915/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) In the matter of; M/s Jawahar Saw Mills Pvt. ACIT Cen Cir – 8(2) बिधम/ Ltd. 47, Victoria Road, Room No. 655, Mustafa Bazaar, Byculla, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 010 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAFCM4866L अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. S. M. Makhija /Lips A. Chanchalani, ARs प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Rajeev Gubgotra, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 11/04/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकी…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

…v/s. Vasantlal C. Mehta - [(2001) 77 ITD 76 (Rajkot)] / [(2001) 72 TTJ (Rajkot) 93] (iv) ITO v/s. Ghanshyambhai R. Thakkar - [(1996) 88 taxman (Ahd) 651 (v) Ramanlal P. Chordia v/s. ACIT - [(2004) 87 TTJ (Pune) 713] Followed: Chander Mohan v/s. ACIT - [(1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune)] (vi) ACIT v/s. Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari - [(2009) 29 SOT 58 (Jodh) (URO)] In other words, as in the instant case, the Department cannot be permitted to tax the entire income, even in absence of any proof of accrual and/or receipt, and at the same time to disallow the corresponding expenses on the ground of no proof of accrual/payment. C…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (1), Indore vs. M/S Dthri Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (M.P), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the revenue stands

ITA 604/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Dcit-2(1), M/S. Dthri Health Care Indore Vs. Pvt. Ltd (M.P), Pu-4, Scheme No.54, Near A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aabcd4095N Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Neema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…cellaneous expenses. It is a well settled legal position that the documents have to be considered in entirety and not choosing only the parts which were beneficial to the revenue Appellant has relied on the decision in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT 71 ITD 245 (Pune), wherein it has been held that the contents of the loose papers are to be accepted in toto. Otherwise also the income has to be taxed and not the gross receipts. When seen in the light of the above it cannot be inferred from the papers found that the gross receipts of the appellant were Rs.44188232/- the gross receipts as per the papers are…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…sidered as dumb papers having no evidentiary value and no addition could be sustained on the basis of them. Navneet Jhamb Vs ACIT ITA No. 1609, 1608, 1610, 1611 and 1612 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04 and 2006-07) Chander Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT 71 ITD 245 (Pune): 65 TTJ 327 Addition cannot be made for investment in diamond jewellery on the basis of papers seized when no such diamond jewellery was found. Jaya S.Shetty Vs. ACIT 69 ITD 336 (Mum) Chit of paper neither a document nor a book of account, addition, therefore, could not be sustained. Atul Kumar Jam Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del): 14 DTC 681 Doc…

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

…ould like to state that the Learned AO having rejected the books of accounts had to do it in full and not in piecemeal. It would be pertinent to get into the judgement of the Pune Tribunal rendered in the case of Chander Mohan Mehta vs ACIT reported in (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune) which in turn relied on the decision of apex court, wherein it was held that :- Firstly, it was contended by the AO that statement of the assessee recorded u/s 131 should be either accepted or rejected in toto unless there is material on the record to prove the contrary. According to him, if the statement of the assessee to the effect that…