CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.

385 ITR 346High Court2016#198 most cited

What is CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A statement made by an assessee under Section 131 during search proceedings, without any corroborating incriminating material found during the search, cannot solely constitute incriminating evidence for making additions in assessments under Section 153A or 153C.

371

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park · IBC Knowledge Park · 385 ITR 346 · section 153A · section 153C · section 131 statement · incriminating material · search assessment · additions without evidence · completed assessments · undisclosed income

Also reported as

69 Taxmann.com 108287 CTR 261

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 131Section 132ASection 69
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bdsection 153a proceedingssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 158bbsection 153(a)jdasection 153c(1)documents seizedsection 158bsection 158section 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd.

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…Court in Pro CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016J 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (kar.); the Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 398. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated t…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…Court in Pro CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016J 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (kar.); the Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 398. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated t…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Sumangal Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…Court in Pro CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016J 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (kar.); the Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 398. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated t…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Samriddhi Metals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…Court in Pro CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016J 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (kar.); the Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 398. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated t…

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. Disha Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

…Court in Pro CIT v. Soumya Construction (P.) Ltd. [2016J 387 ITR 529/[2017] 81 taxmann.com 292 (Guj.); Pr. CIT v. Devangi alias Rupa [Tax Appeal Nos. 54, 55 to 57 of 2017, dated 2-2-2017]; the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. IBC Knowledge Park (P.) Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 346/69 taxmann.com 108 (kar.); the Kolkata High Court in Pr. CIT v. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd. [GA No. 1929 of 2016, dated 24-8-2016] and the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [2016] 386 ITR 483/[2017] 79 taxmann.com 398. In Meeta Gutgutia (supra) the entire gamut of the case law had been analysed and the legal position was reiterated t…

Kk Mohandas, Kannur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Kozhikode

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/COCH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Pavav Ved, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 132Section 153C

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 thereof, that "the detection of seized material leading to an i…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 99/COCH/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 101/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The ACIT, Central Circle, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 100/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 461/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/COCH/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Sri.Mohammed Sherief, Karunagappally vs. The DCIT, Kollam

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/COCH/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. Rajakannan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. K. Jayaganesh, Senior AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 459

…to search. For arriving at such a satisfaction, it is necessary for the AO to prima facie spell out the nature of seized documents and how it belongs to or relates to the assessee. Before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of IBC Knowledge Park, 385 ITR 346 [Kar] the issue for consideration and adjudication was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that it was not necessary to record a satisfaction to the effect that seized material shows undisclosed . ITA Nos.98 to 102, 459 to 462/Coch/2023 Page 9 of 10 income. While deciding this issue, the High Court came to the conclusion at para 50 there…

Divyanidhi Buildcon Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 6, Jaipur

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

ITA 616/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(3)

…s allowable even in absence of any revenue generating activity: Sarabhai Management Corp v/s CIT 102 ITR 25 (Guj) 1-5 Affirmed in CIT v/s Sarabhai Management Corp Ltd. 192 ITR 151 6 (SC) CIT v/s Dhoomketu Builders 368 ITR 680 (Del) 7-10 CIT v/s Knowledge Park 385 ITR 346 (Kar) 11-18 Interest on borrowing for purposes of business investment as a 19-24 measure of commercial expediency is allowable. S.A. Builders Ltd. v/s CIT 288 ITR 1 (SC). Interest on funds borrowed for investment in joint venture/group 11 Divyanidhi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO company allowable: CIT v/s Keventer Agro Ltd. 416 ITR 482 (Cal) 25-26…

Arunachalam Srinivasan, Perambalur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1607/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (in ITA No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 v. The Asst. Commissioner – Shri Arunachalm Srinivasan, of Income Tax, No.274-C, Turiyur Road, Central Circle-1, Perambalur-621 212, Trichy. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ARHPS 0482 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appel…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Trichy vs. A. Srinivasan, Perambalur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2014-15 in ITA

ITA 1527/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1527/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Cross Objection No.13/Chny/2024 (in ITA No.1527/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 v. The Asst. Commissioner – Shri Arunachalm Srinivasan, of Income Tax, No.274-C, Turiyur Road, Central Circle-1, Perambalur-621 212, Trichy. Tamil Nadu. [PAN: ARHPS 0482 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appel…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 717/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529, PCIT vs. Devangi Alia Rupa, reported in 2017-TIOL-319-HC- AHM-IT, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 385 ITR 346, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., reported in 2016-TIOL-2099-HC-Kol-IT, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in (2016) 386 ITR 483 and also going through the Remand Report of the AO dated 16.10.2019 held that there was no seized material pertaining to these th…

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 716/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529, PCIT vs. Devangi Alia Rupa, reported in 2017-TIOL-319-HC- AHM-IT, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 385 ITR 346, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., reported in 2016-TIOL-2099-HC-Kol-IT, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in (2016) 386 ITR 483 and also going through the Remand Report of the AO dated 16.10.2019 held that there was no seized material pertaining to these th…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 715/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of PCIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 387 ITR 529, PCIT vs. Devangi Alia Rupa, reported in 2017-TIOL-319-HC- AHM-IT, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2016) 385 ITR 346, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., reported in 2016-TIOL-2099-HC-Kol-IT, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in (2016) 386 ITR 483 and also going through the Remand Report of the AO dated 16.10.2019 held that there was no seized material pertaining to these th…