CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.

83 Taxmann.com 161High Court2017#562 most cited

What is CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. authority for?

In a search assessment under Section 153A or 153C, additions cannot be sustained if the material or transactions relied upon do not relate or pertain to the assessee. Regular books of accounts not unearthed during search do not constitute incriminating material to justify additions.

172

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132 · search assessment · incriminating material · material not pertaining to assessee · dumb documents · additions based on search · regular books of accounts · undisclosed income

Also reported as

397 ITR 246

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 153CSection 69CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 10(38)Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharessection 158bb(1)section 158bbwarrant of authorisationsection 127(2)section 269tonus of proofsection 269ssection 271edumb documentssection 132(4a)section 34

Judgments citing CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd.

ACIT Circle 1 & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2330/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 34

…a Uma Rani (2019) Taxpub(DT) 2432 (ITAT Vishakapatnam) 3. PrincipalClT,Central Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ld. (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 9 (SC) 4. CIT, Bangalore Vs. 1I3C Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. (69 Taxmann.com 108 (Kar) 6. CIT, Central — III Vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 161) (Bombay) 6. CIT, Central — III Vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. (78 Taxniaun.com 300)(Bombay) 4.20 1 have considered the facts of the case and case laws relied on by the AR of the appellant the ratio laid down in the said cases are applicable to the appellant's case. Further, AO's conclusion that the decision of the CIT(A) for the AX. 1016-20)1'7…

ACIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2329/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 34

…a Uma Rani (2019) Taxpub(DT) 2432 (ITAT Vishakapatnam) 3. PrincipalClT,Central Vs. Krutika Land (P) Ld. (2019) 103 Taxmann.com 9 (SC) 4. CIT, Bangalore Vs. 1I3C Knowledge Park (P) Ltd. (69 Taxmann.com 108 (Kar) 6. CIT, Central — III Vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (83 Taxmann.com 161) (Bombay) 6. CIT, Central — III Vs. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. (78 Taxniaun.com 300)(Bombay) 4.20 1 have considered the facts of the case and case laws relied on by the AR of the appellant the ratio laid down in the said cases are applicable to the appellant's case. Further, AO's conclusion that the decision of the CIT(A) for the AX. 1016-20)1'7…

Usha Hitesh Sanghvi, Girgaon S.O, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(3)(5), Mumbai, Lal Baug

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6172/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 6172/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Usha Hitesh Sanghvi v/s. Income Tax Officer, 19(3)(5), 2nd Floor Kanji Mension, बनाम Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Girgaon S.O., Mumbai 400 004, Maharashtra Parel, Mumbai 400012, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AFBPS4388F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Rajkumar Singh, AR Respondent by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6195/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6191/Mum/2024 to 6196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19) Mrs. Rupal Kashyap Mehta Vs. DCIT CC 4(1) 26/27, A Wing Mumbai Ahuja Towers Rajabhau Desai Road Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AGRPM5338E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (Hybrid) / Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid ap…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6193/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6191/Mum/2024 to 6196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19) Mrs. Rupal Kashyap Mehta Vs. DCIT CC 4(1) 26/27, A Wing Mumbai Ahuja Towers Rajabhau Desai Road Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AGRPM5338E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (Hybrid) / Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid ap…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6192/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6191/Mum/2024 to 6196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19) Mrs. Rupal Kashyap Mehta Vs. DCIT CC 4(1) 26/27, A Wing Mumbai Ahuja Towers Rajabhau Desai Road Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AGRPM5338E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (Hybrid) / Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid ap…

Rupal Kashyap Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6191/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6191/Mum/2024 to 6196/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19) Mrs. Rupal Kashyap Mehta Vs. DCIT CC 4(1) 26/27, A Wing Mumbai Ahuja Towers Rajabhau Desai Road Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400 025 PAN/GIR No.AGRPM5338E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal (Hybrid) / Shri Satish Kumar Gupta Revenue by Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 20/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The aforesaid ap…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d in electronic D-mat mode and sold such shares on floor of BSE at prevailing market price and thereafter had received the sale consideration from SEBI registered stock broker. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd (83 Taxmann.com 161) had decided that the addition cannot be made solely on the basis of 3rd parties statement. 10.9 It is further stated that in any case, neither the copies of contrary material, statements of 3rd parties nor opportunity of cross examination had been allowed to the assessee and accordingly would not hold any adverse bearing on the assessee.…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d in electronic D-mat mode and sold such shares on floor of BSE at prevailing market price and thereafter had received the sale consideration from SEBI registered stock broker. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd (83 Taxmann.com 161) had decided that the addition cannot be made solely on the basis of 3rd parties statement. 10.9 It is further stated that in any case, neither the copies of contrary material, statements of 3rd parties nor opportunity of cross examination had been allowed to the assessee and accordingly would not hold any adverse bearing on the assessee.…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d in electronic D-mat mode and sold such shares on floor of BSE at prevailing market price and thereafter had received the sale consideration from SEBI registered stock broker. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd (83 Taxmann.com 161) had decided that the addition cannot be made solely on the basis of 3rd parties statement. 10.9 It is further stated that in any case, neither the copies of contrary material, statements of 3rd parties nor opportunity of cross examination had been allowed to the assessee and accordingly would not hold any adverse bearing on the assessee.…

Mr Pankaj Goshar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1256/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 2015-1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1224/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal For Revenue : Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 2015-1…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

ITA 1223/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms.Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. Α.Υ. Appellant Respondent 1224/Mum/2024 | 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, 1101, Mont Blanc, 550, Jam-e-Jamshed Road, Matunga East, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G 1223/Mum/2024 | 2015-16 Mr. Pankaj Goshar, 1601, Mount Pleasant, 586, Lady Jehangir Road, Matunga, Mumbai PAN: AACPG7709G Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(4), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai. 1256/Mum/2024 |…

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Raj Technology, Mumbai

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

ITA 3947/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

…s/sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. It was further held that “such loose papers” are not books of account and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. 3.11. In the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017)(397 ITR 246) (Bom), it was held that where entire decision is based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents but not supported by actual cash passing hands, no addition can be made. In the instant case also, the AO has drawn presumptions that the image files and Excel sheets represent import of goods by the assessee. However, the said presumption is no…

Raj Technology, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4 (2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 3840/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

…rs/sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. It was further held that “such loose papers” are not books of account and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. 3.11. In the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017)(397 ITR 246) (Bom), it was held that where entire decision is based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents but not supported by actual cash passing hands, no addition can be made. In the instant case also, the AO has drawn presumptions that the image files and Excel sheets represent import of goods by the assessee. However, the said presumption is no…

Raj Technology, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3836/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

…s/sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. It was further held that “such loose papers” are not books of account and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a person with liability. 3.11. In the case of CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd (2017)(397 ITR 246) (Bom), it was held that where entire decision is based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents but not supported by actual cash passing hands, no addition can be made. In the instant case also, the AO has drawn presumptions that the image files and Excel sheets represent import of goods by the assessee. However, the said presumption is no…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vijay Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via DCIT Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : ALHPK5340F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent by : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R PER…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via DCIT Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : ALHPK5340F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent by : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R PER…

Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod, Karnataka vs. Mr. C. Vinod Jayan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi, Kasargod IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.636 to 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via DCIT Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka PAN NO : ALHPK5340F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent by : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R PER…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 805/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…2019] 261 Taxmann 454 (SC) dismissed the SLP arising out of the Page 27 of 42 M/s Prakash Asphalting & Toll Highways (India) Ltd. ITA Nos. 793 to 799/Ind/2019 & ITA Nos. 800 to 805/Ind/2019 - AY 2009-10 to 2015-16 Judgment CIT Vs. Lavnya Land Pvt Ltd [2017] 83 Taxmann.com 161 (Bom). The issue decided in favor of assessee as under, "Whether since seized document did not belong to Assessee but seized from residential premises of one DD who had later retracted his statement, no action Under section 153C could have been undertaken in respect of Assessee, Held Yes. Whether further since entire decision was based on…