CIT v. Girish Chaudhary

296 ITR 619High Court2008#552 most cited

What is CIT v. Girish Chaudhary authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary · 296 ITR 619 · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132 · Section 292C · dumb documents · loose papers · evidentiary value of seized material · on-money receipts · unaccounted income · corroborative evidence

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 608

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 115BBESection 292CSection 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionabatement of assessmentsection 158b(b)section 132(4a)third party informationdumb documentson money receiptsection 158bb(1)section 292cstatement under section 132(4)loose paperssection 158bc

Judgments citing CIT v. Girish Chaudhary

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…m) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It is settled position of…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 464/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 463/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

M/S. Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 415/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 8.10 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 8.10 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 13.46 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 13.46 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 13.46 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 13.46 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 13.46 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…ing of partner of the assessee firm and have not been found from the business premises of the assessee firm, was illegal. For this proposition, reliance was placed in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245) Del. HC and CIT vs Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further su…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…ing of partner of the assessee firm and have not been found from the business premises of the assessee firm, was illegal. For this proposition, reliance was placed in the case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Chaudhary (305 ITR 245) Del. HC and CIT vs Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further su…

Rishi Aggarwal, Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

…has not been accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in following judgments. Rishi Aggarwal vs. DCIT " Common Cause [A Registered Society] vs. UOI 394 ITR 220 (SC), " CBI vs. VC Shukla 3 SCC 410 (SC) " CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) " CIT vs. Anil Bhalla (2010) 322 ITR 191 (Delhi) " CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) " Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (1999) 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786 15. In the case of CIT vs. Jaipal Aggarwal [2013] 212 Taxman 1 (Delhi)- wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, i.e., from which nothing could be clearly understood, cannot form…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5764/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

…ibited hereinabove, is highly questionable and has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Common Cause [A Registered Society] 294 ITR 220, CBI Vs. VC Shukla 3SCC 410 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Girish Choudhary 296 ITR 619. 7. At the assessment stage itself, it was explained by the assessee that : “This document is a proposed undated payment schedule made possibly in the year 2007-08 regarding separation of Shri Ramesh Kumar Prithani from Brahmaputra Group, no such payment took place till date and the same has not been materialized”. 8. The ld. DR had vehemently…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Ramesh Kumar Prithani, New Delhi

In the result the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 5763/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

…ibited hereinabove, is highly questionable and has not been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Common Cause [A Registered Society] 294 ITR 220, CBI Vs. VC Shukla 3SCC 410 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Girish Choudhary 296 ITR 619. 7. At the assessment stage itself, it was explained by the assessee that : “This document is a proposed undated payment schedule made possibly in the year 2007-08 regarding separation of Shri Ramesh Kumar Prithani from Brahmaputra Group, no such payment took place till date and the same has not been materialized”. 8. The ld. DR had vehemently…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…d in the loose sheets without any corroborative evidence placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Central Bureau Investigation vs. V. C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410. (ii) Common Cause vs. Union of Inda, 394 ITR 220 (SC). (iii) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary, 296 ITR 619 (Delhi). 17. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submits that the statement given by the assessee during the course of search and seizure operations u/s 132(4) together with the notings in the Diary 20 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 constitutes an incriminating material and can form the basis for making the addition since t…

ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. G Trade and Capital Venture Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3211/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the 7. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish sioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed in…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3038/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the 7. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish sioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed in…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Gm Modular Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application

ITA 3037/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3033 To 3038/Mum/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-2020 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th 8/9 Bokadia Industrial Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, Estate Waliv, Sativali Road, Mumbai-400020. Vasai East Vasai Palghar-401 208. Pan No. Aabcg 3313 Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asstt. Cit Central Circle-2(1), M/S G Trade & Capital Old Cgo Building, 804, 8Th Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Floor, M.K. Road, 6 G Laxmi Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400020. New Linking Road, Andheri (West) Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aadcg 7583 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh Jain a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the 7. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish sioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers , [2008] 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed income. should not be taken as a basis for determining undisclosed in…