CIT v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal

398 ITR 586High Court2017#936 most cited

What is CIT v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal authority for?

In assessments made under Section 153A following a search, no additions can be sustained unless incriminating material is found during the search proceedings. Additions cannot be based on material gathered post-search or information not related to the search.

114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal · Section 153A · Section 132 · incriminating material · search assessment · no addition without incriminating material · abatement of assessment · undisclosed income · post-search material · unexplained money · Bombay High Court

Also reported as

86 Taxmann.com 3

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 115BBESection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 148Section 69ASection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 127(2)abatement of assessmentsection 153(c)third party informationsection 131(1)section 153(a)section 140surrender of incomesummons under section 131paper companysection 158bdsection 156

Judgments citing CIT v. Deepak Kumar Agarwal

D, Decor Exporter P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1050/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 127(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ear, no disallowance or addition can be made in absence of any incriminating material. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on following judgments: > Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd [374 ITR 645 Bom] > Deepak Kumar Agarwal [398 ITR 586 Bom] > SKS Ispat & Power Ltd [398 ITR 584 Bom] > Gurinder Singh Bawa [386 ITR 483 Bom] 1.3 The learned CIT(DR) referred page 123 of the paper book and stated that some blank bills were found during the course of search action which constitute incriminating material to justify the additions/disallowance. Copies of these bills have been produced be…

Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 760/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234Section 43B

…llowing judgements :- (i) CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., 374 ITR 645 (Bom.-HC). (ii) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi-HC). (iii) CIT vs. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., 398 ITR 584 (Bom.-HC). (iv) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal, 398 ITR 586 (Bom.-HC). 12. As a corollary, it follow that no fresh claim unrelated to the undisclosed income can be made in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. Even the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa, 386 ITR 483 has laid down that the provisions of section 153A cannot be tool to…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 583/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 582/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 581/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1) Investigation Wing, Chennai vs. M/S G Tech Stone Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 580/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 539/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

G-Tech Stone Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 2(1), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3053/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 36Section 40A(3)

…follow its own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. Therefore, this argument would not hold much water which is also fortified by subsequent decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) which held as under:- 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the decision rendered by a Divis…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ssessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. CIT VS. Deepak Kumar Agarwal &Ors. (2017) 158 DTR 100/251 Taxman 22 (Bom.) (HC) No addition could have been made while completing assessment u/s 153A in the case of completed assessment if no incriminating material is recovered and no undisclosed income was determinable from the material found as a result of search. Once there is no incriminating material in support of the addition is brought on rec…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ssessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance can be made only on the basis of material collected during the search or requisition. CIT VS. Deepak Kumar Agarwal &Ors. (2017) 158 DTR 100/251 Taxman 22 (Bom.) (HC) No addition could have been made while completing assessment u/s 153A in the case of completed assessment if no incriminating material is recovered and no undisclosed income was determinable from the material found as a result of search. Once there is no incriminating material in support of the addition is brought on rec…

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 983/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-7827-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1140/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashish K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), Ajmera House, 4Th Floor R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम Pathakwadi, L.T.Marg Old Cgo Building, / Vs. Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-9075-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1113/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Minal M. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adepa-9661-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 539/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Avani J. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Addpa-9331-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री छल्ला नागेन्द्र प्रसाद, न्याययक सदस्य एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera DCIT-2(2), 4th floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8th floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old CGO Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. A…

Yogesh Mehra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, C.C.-3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4007/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Yogesh Mehra, DCIT, C.C.- 3(1), Flat No.201, Air India Building, Hare Krishna Society, Nariman Point, Vs. North South Road No.8, Mumbai - 400021 Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400 009 PAN: AAAPM6139N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Ritu Kamal Kishor, A.R. Revenue by : Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R. Date of Hearing : 13.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal…

Jagdishkumar Madanlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 3458/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.3458 & 3459/M/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Mr. Jagdishkumar DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Madanlal Gupta, Room No.1928, 16-A, Andheri Industrial Air India Building, Estate, Vs. Nariman Point, Veera Desai Road, Mumbai - 400021 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058 PAN: AACPG2753N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. J. Kumar DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Developers Ltd., Room No.1928, 16-A, Andheri Industrial Air India Building, Estate, Vs.…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur (Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 731/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…Delhi High Court): The action of the ITAT in deleting the addition u/s 2(22)(e) since it was not based on any incriminating document seized during the search was upheld. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 77 to 79. (f) Principal CIT vs. DharampalPremchand - 99 CCH 202 (Del…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur ( Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 730/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…Delhi High Court): The action of the ITAT in deleting the addition u/s 2(22)(e) since it was not based on any incriminating document seized during the search was upheld. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 77 to 79. (f) Principal CIT vs. DharampalPremchand - 99 CCH 202 (Del…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur(Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…Delhi High Court): The action of the ITAT in deleting the addition u/s 2(22)(e) since it was not based on any incriminating document seized during the search was upheld. Copy of the decision is enclosed at page no. 71 to 76. (e) CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal - 398 ITR 586 (Bombay High Court): It was held that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of the incriminating material found in search and only income related to incriminating documents found during search can be considered in assessment. Copy of the order is enclosed at page no. 77 to 79. (f) Principal CIT vs. DharampalPremchand - 99 CCH 202 (Del…

M/S J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3449/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. J. Kumar Dy. Cit, Infraprojects Ltd., Central Circle-5(1), 16A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai Estate, Vs. Veera Desasi Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jt. Cit (Osd) Cc-5(1), M/S. J. Kumar R.No.1926, Infraprojects Ltd., 19Th Floor, 16A, Andheri Industrial Air India Bldg., Vs. Estate, Nariman Point, Veera Desasi Road, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaacj9161C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jacinta Zimik Vashai, D.R
Section 37(1)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. J. Kumar Dy. CIT, Infraprojects Ltd., Central Circle-5(1), 16A, Andheri Industrial Mumbai Estate, Vs. Veera Desasi Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAACJ9161C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jt. CIT (OSD) CC-5(1), M/s. J. Kumar R.No.1926, Infraprojects Ltd., 19th…

Asst CIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S B & M Buildcon, Mumbai

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order whereas the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7472/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6673/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6674/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. B & M Buildcon Dcit-Central Circle-1(1) V-Time Square, Level 13 Room No.903, 9Th Floor बिाम/ Plot No.3, Sector-15 Pratishtha Bhavan Vs. Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Navi Mumbai- 400 614. M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7472/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-Central Circle-1(1) M/S. B & M Buildcon Room No.903, 9Th Floor V-Time Square, Level 13 बिाम/ Pratishtha Bhavan Plot No.3, Sector-15 Vs. Old Cgo Bdg. (Annexe) Palm Beach Road, Cbd Belapur M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Navi Mumbai- 400 614. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfb-6551-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. Cit- Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/02/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ts own decision rendered in CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 374 ITR 645]. 9. Proceeding further, Hon’ble Bombay High Court had the occasion to consider identical argument raised by the revenue in the case law of CIT V/s Deepak Kumar Agarwal (398 ITR 586 11/09/2017) and negated the same by observing as under: - 20. At the outset, and since heavy reliance is placed by the Revenue on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), it would be proper to note the facts in the same. 21. There, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax challenged the correctness of the deci…