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

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…bad Benches. 6. Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case 0/ K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 5630/2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal 7. CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) 8. CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) 9. CTT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court. 10. ACITVs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ0145) (Delhi) 11. Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur. 15.109 Moreover, in the instant case, the confessions have also been retracted and it is also a fact that the addition made is also not supported by any corroborative or primary / direct material evidence. Fro…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 629/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 628/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sbharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 627/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Prem Bhutani, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 28Section 32Section 34Section 69A

…ottings for computing the income of the assessee. The Reliance for the proposition that such jottings by themselves would not constitute income which has been declared in the judicial decisions CIT vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi), CIT vs, Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Delhi), CIT vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Delhi). The relevant observations made in the case of CIT Vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi) is as under: 8 ITA. 429/Del/2020 Prem Bhutani vs. DCIT “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt.Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the…

Vinay Todi, Kolkata vs. DCIT Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 664/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Vinay Todi V. Dcit – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 Pan: Adapt6426A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Vinay Todi v. DCIT – Circle – 1(4) 98, Christopher Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Brindavan Garden, B2, 6th Floor Mumbai - 400020 Flat No. 1 & 2 Kolkata-700046 PAN: ADAPT6426A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Haridas Bhatt Department Represented by : Shri Vranda U Matkari Date of Hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against o…

Shri Suresh Kumar Namdeo, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/BIL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.84/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Suresh Kumar Namdeo, Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur A-9, Green Garden Colony, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Ablpn 0899 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal,CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 153C

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.84/RPR/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) Suresh Kumar Namdeo, Vs ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bilaspur A-9, Green Garden Colony, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) PAN No. : ABLPN 0899 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri G.S.Agrawal,CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR सुनिाई की तारीख / Date of He…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…y interest. Finding by Tribunal that on basis of seized paper no inference could be drawn that the assessee charged compound interest. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similarly, the document recovered during the course of search in the present case is a dumb document and l…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…y interest. Finding by Tribunal that on basis of seized paper no inference could be drawn that the assessee charged compound interest. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similarly, the document recovered during the course of search in the present case is a dumb document and l…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…y interest. Finding by Tribunal that on basis of seized paper no inference could be drawn that the assessee charged compound interest. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings were held invalid.” The jurisdictional high court in case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 has also made similar observation. The relevant portion thereof is as under:- There is no material on record to show as to on what basis the Assessing Officer has reached at the conclusion that the figure "48" is to be read as Rs. 48 lakhs. Similarly, the document recovered during the course of search in the present case is a dumb document and l…

M/S. Kanak Agro Infrastructure, Khandwa vs. The ITO Ward-1, Khandwa

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 911/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…ifferent judicial forum has been duly submitted before us and before the authorities below. 18. The relevant observation and finding of the said judicial forum in those judgements are reproduced heheinbelow: i) In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held that"That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not placed upon."…

Saaras Agro Industries, Khandwa vs. The ACIT, Khandwa

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 910/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68Section 69

…ifferent judicial forum has been duly submitted before us and before the authorities below. 18. The relevant observation and finding of the said judicial forum in those judgements are reproduced heheinbelow: i) In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held that"That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not placed upon."…

Dy. CIT CC -7(40), Mumbai vs. Shree Ambica Gems, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1769/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Biren ShahFor Respondent: Pitta Samuel
Section 133ASection 69A

…ake in fact when there is a clear admission voluntarily made, by the assessee that would constitute a good piece of evidence for the Revenue 7. The learned counsel for the assessee relied upon a decision of the Doth High Court in CIT v Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 to plead that loose sheets of papers should not be taken as a bass for determining undisclosed income. However, in the case on hand loose shoots found during the search are not the sole basis for determining the tax liability. It is a piece of evidence to prove undisclosed income. The printout statements of undisclosed income is not disputed by t…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ITA nos. 2131to 2135/Mum/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA Nos. 2131 & 2135/Mum/2021 (Assessment Years 2014–15 & 2012–13) M/s Thakkar Housing ACIT 2(3)(1) Development Pvt. Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6067C M/s Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. ACIT 2(3)(1) Ltd. R. no. 552, Aayakar Bhavan, 37–39, Kantol Niwas, Vs. M.K. Road, Modi Street, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCT6069…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Mansukh T. Timbadia, Raigad

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

ITA 72/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Smt. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ll the annexures seized from Dilip Dherai are dumb documents as those were not containing the name of assessee, nature of transaction, quantum involved and period of transaction and she referred to case laws in the case of CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary reported in 296 ITR 619 (Delhi HC), CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 (SC), Common Cause Vs. Union of India reported in 77 taxmann.com 245(SC), ACIT Vs. Shailesh S Shah reported in 63 ITD 153 (Mumbai ITAT) and Omar Salary Mohmad SAit Vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 151 (SC). 14. Further, she argued that there was no evidence brought on record by the AO and CIT-A to…

Mansukh Timbadia, Raigad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 1713/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Smt. Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ll the annexures seized from Dilip Dherai are dumb documents as those were not containing the name of assessee, nature of transaction, quantum involved and period of transaction and she referred to case laws in the case of CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary reported in 296 ITR 619 (Delhi HC), CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 (SC), Common Cause Vs. Union of India reported in 77 taxmann.com 245(SC), ACIT Vs. Shailesh S Shah reported in 63 ITD 153 (Mumbai ITAT) and Omar Salary Mohmad SAit Vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 151 (SC). 14. Further, she argued that there was no evidence brought on record by the AO and CIT-A to…