What is CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna authority for?

A sworn statement made under section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be used as evidence in assessment proceedings.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna (344 ITR 352), spanning 2012 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 115BBE, Section 69.

CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna (344 ITR 352)

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.) O. Abdul Razak (supra)." (Emphasis Supplied) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29-09-2010] "15. Having crystalized legal position, it is now apt to delve on the factual situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a statement under s. 132(4) of the Act whereby a surrender of Rs. 2,00,000 was made. Besides this, the assessee had admi…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…achittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537\n(Kerala)(26.05.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012]\n344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana)\n(29.09.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nHeadnotes\nSection 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and\nseizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995\nWhether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on\noath and such a sworn state…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…achittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537\n(Kerala)(26.05.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012]\n344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana)\n(29.09.2010)\nX\nHeadnotes\nX\nX\nX\nSection 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and\nseizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995\nWhether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on\noath and such a sworn state…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…achittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537\n(Kerala)(26.05.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012]\n344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana)\n(29.09.2010)\nX\nHeadnotes\nX\nX\nX\nSection 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and\nseizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995\nWhether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on\noath and such a sworn state…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 153A

…achittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Hotel Meriya (2010) 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537\n(Kerala)(26.05.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nCIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012]\n344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana)\n(29.09.2010)\nX\nX\nX\nX\nHeadnotes\nSection 132, read with section 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and\nseizure. Block periods 1-4-1985 to 31-3-1995 and 1-4-1995 to 12-12-1995\nWhether section 132(4) enables an authorized officer to examine a person on\noath and such a sworn state…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26.05.2010] x x x x CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2010) 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Ahmedabad [2011] 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahmedabad-ITAT)/[2012] 15 ITR(T) 62(Ahmedabad- ITAT)/[2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad-ITAT)/(2011) 142 TTJ 233(Ahmedabad-ITAT) (26.06.2011). x x x x Appellate has not produced any complaint lodged w…

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…ad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana) x x x x CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459 (Kerala)/(2011) 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26.05.2010] x x x x CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2010) 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Ahmedabad [2011] 14 taxmann.com 108 (Ahmedabad-ITAT)/[2012] 15 ITR(T) 62(Ahmedabad- ITAT)/[2011] 133 ITD 57 (Ahmedabad-ITAT)/(2011) 142 TTJ 233(Ahmedabad-ITAT) (26.06.2011). x x x x Appellate has not produced any complaint lodged w…

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1029/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…habad) x x x x Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punjab & Haryana] x x x x CIT v. Hotel Mariya [2010] 195 taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26-05-2010] x x x x CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) x x x x In ManharlalKasturchand Chokshi vs. ACIT [1997] 61 ITD 55 (Ahd.) x x x x In Param Anand Builders (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [1996] 59 ITD 29 (ITAT-Mum) x x x x The Hon'ble ITAT held that the retraction or rather den…

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tax Act. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the appellant and find that the respondent is liable to be assessed during the block period at uniform rate." Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 [Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 [Punjab & Haryana)[29-09-2010] "15. Having crystalized legal position, it is now apt to delve on the factual situation of the present case. It is not in dispute that the assessce had made a statement under s. 132(4) of the Act whereby a surrender of Rs. 2,00,000 was made. Besides this, the assessee had admitt…

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1123/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e earlier statements was recorded under pressure, coercion or compulsion by filing a complaint to higher officials. This position was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Punj. & Har.), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj. & Har.), Rameshchandra & Co., vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)…

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1122/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 153A

…e earlier statements was recorded under pressure, coercion or compulsion by filing a complaint to higher officials. This position was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Punj. & Har.), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj. & Har.), Rameshchandra & Co., vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)…

MR. ANIL KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 227 & 228/Mum/2023 Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah Vs. CIT(A)-51 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21) Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income C-805, Suparshwa Urban Tax (Appeals)-51 CHSL, Old Nagardas Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri, East M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AWTPS7928Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Anil Thakrar Respondent by : Ashok Kumar Kardam Date of Hearing…

MR. ANIL KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 227/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…P a g e | 1 ITA Nos. 227 & 228/Mum/2023 Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah Vs. CIT(A)-51 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 to 2020-21) Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah Vs. Commissioner of Income C-805, Suparshwa Urban Tax (Appeals)-51 CHSL, Old Nagardas Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri, East M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400069 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AWTPS7928Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Anil Thakrar Respondent by : Ashok Kumar Kardam Date of Hearing…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

R. KANTILAL & CO.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6773/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &

Section 153ASection 68

…ld not make the statement unacceptable. The burden lay on the assessee to establish that the admission made in the statement at the time of survey was wrong and in fact there was no additional income.” 7.15. Further it has been held in CIT Vs Lekh Raj Dhunna, 344 ITR 352. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) as under.- “Retraction from the statement during the assessment proceedings was not valid as no plausible explanation has been furnished as to why the said statement could not be withdrawn earlier.” 7.16. In the case of RamjasNawalVs. CIT &Anr., (2003) 183 CTR 144, (Raj.). it was held as under:- “….If statements…

CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna

What is CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

MR. ANIL KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

MR. ANIL KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

R. KANTILAL & CO.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI

R. KANTILAL & CO.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), MUMBAI

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

DCIT CC -5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. R. KANTILAL & COMPANY, MUMBAI

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI

DCIT, CC - 5(1), MUMBAI vs. PARAG SURESH KOTHARI, MUMBAI