CIT v. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd.

356 ITR 420High Court2013#7891 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 145(2)Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 80ib(10)section 145(2)project completion methodon money receiptsection 131(1a)section 80ibicdsrejection of books of accountblock periodspecified authorityon-moneysection 145(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd.

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT LTD,RAJOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 787/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nsequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there must be some other\nmaterial or evidence which has not been found during the search and the assessee\nmust have derived the undisclosed income therefrom.\n\n• In the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd 356 ITR 420, Hon'ble High Court of\nMadhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents\nwithout cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was\nactually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of\nassessee were duly audited.\n\n• Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Raviraj Ko…

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 786/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…sequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there must be some other\nmaterial or evidence which has not been found during the search and the assessee\nmust have derived the undisclosed income therefrom.\n\n•\nIn the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd 356 ITR 420, Hon'ble High Court of\nMadhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents\nwithout cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was\nactually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of\nassessee were duly audited.\n\n•\nHon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Raviraj K…

SIX TWENTY REALTY PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. DCIT, CC-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 785/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…us consequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there must be some other material or evidence which has not been found during the search and the assessee must have derived the undisclosed income therefrom.  In the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd 356 ITR 420, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents without cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was actually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of assessee were duly audited.  Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Raviraj Kothai vs…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SIX TWENTY REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAJKOT

ITA 765/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nsequences. The Assessing Officer cannot presume that there must be some other\nmaterial or evidence which has not been found during the search and the assessee\nmust have derived the undisclosed income therefrom.\n\n• In the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd 356 ITR 420, Hon'ble High Court of\nMadhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents\nwithout cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was\nactually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of\nassessee were duly audited.\n\n• Hon'ble ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Raviraj Ko…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 28 3 1 MUMBAI, VASHI vs. TRIVENI AND C J GROUP, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is accordingly dismissed in the above terms

ITA 4032/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito 28(3)(1) Vs. Triveni & C. J. R. No. 316, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Group, Railway Station, Vashi Shop No. 1, Bhoomi Navi Mumbai-400 703 Tower, Sector-4, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai-400 709 Pan/Gir No. Aafft1041B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ritika Agarwal, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm:

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…200 ITR 567 (SC) 3 CIT V. M/s. Metro In the Absence of any evidence, Construction Co. ITA merely on the basis of no.2339 of 2013(Bom.) suspicion, it is not open to add any amount as income 4 CIT v. Dophin Builders (P.) No on money addition without Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 420 evidence (MP) 5 Neelkamal Realtor & When the assessee offered an Erectors India (P) Ltd. v. explanation for charging a lower DCIT (2013) 38 price in respect of some of the taxmann.com 195 (MUM) flats sold by it, the AO, without and ACTT v. Rustom Soil controverting such explanation, Sethna ITA cannot make an addition to the 5086/MUM/2014 income o…

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1144/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 115QSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 36(1)(va)

…t the jotting of 3,97,000/- represent actual expenditure which proves that the whole inference has been drawn on the basis of presumptions and hypothesis only. - d) In this regard, we rely on the following case laws: - CIT vs. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd (2013) (356 ITR 420), the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court vide order dated 30.04.2013 held that though there may be some doubt about the price of the flats, but until and unless it could have been proved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…peal before the Honble Rajasthan High Court which has been dismissed vide order in DBIT No. 04/2022 dt. 14.12.2023. Copy of order is enclosed. On this preposition also kindly refer following decisions: The Honble MP High court CIT v/s Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd 356 ITR 420 held that Department had not examined any purchaser or flat owner to verify correctness of noting that some higher amount was paid by said purchaser to “B” Builders or fact that actual price was much higher to price which was recorded in account books. The Tribunal had also found that if any amount was collected in excess to the agreed price then…

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…before the Honble Rajasthan High Court which has\nbeen dismissed vide order in DBIT No. 04/2022 dt. 14.12.2023. Copy of order is\nenclosed.\nOn this preposition also kindly refer following decisions:\nThe Honble MP High court CIT v/s Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd 356 ITR 420 held that\nDepartment had not examined any purchaser or flat owner to verify correctness of noting\nthat some higher amount was paid by said purchaser to “B” Builders or fact that actual\nprice was much higher to price which was recorded in account books. The Tribunal had\nalso found that if any amount was collected in excess to the agreed price…

M/S SHIVAM RESORTS,ABOHAR vs. DCIT, CC-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 427/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Shivam Resorts, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -1, Malout, Hamunangarh Road, बनाम Ludhiana Bye Pass, Abohar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Accfs7094Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar,Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahus Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar,CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahus Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250(6)

…ion of undisclosed profit made by AO for the entire block period on the basis of seized loose papers which indicated undisclosed sales for three months was not justified. In the case of CIT v. Dolphin Builders (P.) Ltd. [2013] 35 taxmann.com 3/216 Taxman 116/356 ITR 420, Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents without cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was actually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of assessee were duly audited. In the case of D.N. Kamani HUF v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77…

DCIT CC 3 2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BKS GALAXY REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2276/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Tribunal on the issues decided against each of them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

…notice that none of the above ingredients is present in the facts of the present case. 10. We may refer to some of the judicial decisions relied upon by Ld A.R in this regard, which support our view:- (a) In the case of CIT vs. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd (2013)(356 ITR 420), the Hon‟ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that though there may be some doubt about the price of the flats, but until and unless it could have been proved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in the in…

BKS GALAXY REALTORS LLP (ERSTWHILE BKS GALAXY REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1018/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Tribunal On The Issues Decided Against Each Of Them. 3

Section 133(6)Section 133A

…notice that none of the above ingredients is present in the facts of the present case. 10. We may refer to some of the judicial decisions relied upon by Ld A.R in this regard, which support our view:- (a) In the case of CIT vs. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd (2013)(356 ITR 420), the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that though there may be some doubt about the price of the flats, but until and unless it could have been proved by some evidence, aforesaid doubt cannot take place of proof. Until and unless such noting is corroborated by some material evidence, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition in the in…

SAVALIYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…C. J. Shah & Co. (246 ITR 671) that estimation of undisclosed profit made by AO for the entire block period on the basis of seized loose papers which indicated undisclosed sales for three months was not justified. (b) In the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd (356 ITR 420), Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents without cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was actually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of assessee were duly audited. (c) It was held by Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of…

M/S. SAVALIYA BUILDCON,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…C. J. Shah & Co. (246 ITR 671) that estimation of undisclosed profit made by AO for the entire block period on the basis of seized loose papers which indicated undisclosed sales for three months was not justified. (b) In the case of Dolphin Builders Pvt. Ltd (356 ITR 420), Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that making addition merely on the basis of seized documents without cogent evidence that excess amount mentioned in seized document was actually passed on to the assessee was not sustainable where books of account of assessee were duly audited. (c) It was held by Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of…

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Del.) " CIT Vs Lubtec India Ltd. 311 ITR 175 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. 332 ITR 468 (P&H) " CIT Vs Dolphin Builders (P.) Ltd. 356 ITR 420 (MP) " ACIT Vs Sharad Chaudhary 165 TTJ 145 (Del. Trib.) " CIT Vs Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) " ITO Vs Twinkle Papers (P.) Ltd. 95 TTJ 987 (Chd. Trib.) (TM) 17. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the AO made a reference to the concerned authority vide letter dated…

CIT v. Dolphin Builders (P) Ltd. (356 ITR 420) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax