CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah

307 ITR 137High Court2008#586 most cited

What is CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah authority for?

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

166

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah · on-money · loose papers · sauda-chitthi · addition · evidence of payment · section 292C · section 132(4a) · dumb documents

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 115BBESection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 153ASection 132(4A)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

on money receiptsection 132(4a)dumb documentspeak credit theorysection 292con-moneythird party informationloose paperssection 69bcircle ratesection 34section 158bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat vs. Kush Corporation, Surat

In the result, grounds of cross objection raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

…square feet is on built up area or for carpet area as no area is mentioned in the WhatsApp chat. The ld. IT(SS)A No. 93 & 94 & ITA 357/Srt/2022 & CO 01/Srt/2023 ACIT Vs Kush Corporation CIT(A) by relying on decision in the case of CIT Vs Maulik Kumar K Shah 307 ITR 137 (Guj) wherein it was held that corroborative material has to be brought on record apart from the incriminating material to prove that such sales were actually made and on money was received outside the books of account. The ld. CIT(A) noted that the Assessing Officer needs to examine the purchaser who have bought these flats to confirm the paymen…

DCIT, Central Circle - 3, Surat vs. Shiri Ashesh Nanalal Doshi, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AY 2016-17 is also dismissed

ITA 32/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 07/Srt /2021 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 254(1)

…cerned. The ld. CIT(A) by referring the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Common Cause and Others Vs UOI in Writ Petition Civil Appeal No. 505 of 2015 and V.C. Shukla Vs UOI 1998 (3) SCC 410 and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Mauli Kumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) and PCIT Vs Ajay Sundarbhai Patel IT(SS)A No. 07& 32/Srt/2021 DCIT Vs Sh. Ashesh Nanalal Doshi AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 (2016) 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj) held that the addition on the basis of dumb document is not justified. The assessee sought cross examination of Shri Aagam Vadecha which was not provided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishancha…

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

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

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

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

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

…me person and no enquiry or verification was made with the seller of the properties. Further reliance in this regard, can be placed on the following decisions :- i) CIT vs. Atam Valves (P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) ii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) iii) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) iv) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) v) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) vi) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) vii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) viii) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del)…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Ankul Anurag Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 315/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.315/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Cicle-3, Vs. Ankul Anurag Agarwal, Surat. A-2, 903, Salasar Palance-1, Near: Vastugram Vesu, Surat- 395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aespa7850E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)

…bouts were found. Hence, the assessee submitted before ld CIT(A) that the paper found was a dumb document and the same could not be relied upon. The assessee also relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maulik Kumar Shah 307 ITR 137. The assessee also produced the copy of sale deed executed by the builder of Florence of flat No.C-302 to Mr. Sneh Vmay Saraf. This sale deed is dated 04.08.2015, which is before the date of Search. This proves that the assessee was not the purchaser of the flat. The details of cash transactions Ankul Anurag Agarwal of the assessee which were fou…

Shri. Rakesh Natwarlal Thakkar, Thane vs. DCIT CC-1 Thane, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7781/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shri Rakesh Natwarlal Thakkar, Dcit Central Circle-1, 13/5Th Floor, Kashima Co-Op 6Th Floor, Room No. 10, Vs. Society, Opp. Damani Estate, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, Lbs Marg, Thane (West), Road, No. 16-Z, Pin – 400602 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400604 Pan No. Aanpt 8579 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, Cit–Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Mrs. Riddhi Mishra, CIT–DR
Section 132

…ion could have been made relying on the decision therefore, no addition could have been made relying on the decision in the case of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat CIT v. Maulikkumar CIT v. Maulikkumar in the case of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Gujarat) K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Gujarat). But we note that t But we note that the facts of the said case are distinguishab of the said case are distinguishable as in said case the paper in in said case the paper in question did not indicate any question did not indicate any transaction, whereas in instant case transaction, whereas in instan…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 381/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…man 454) held that where AO did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to value of property and merely relied on the statement of seller, the additions could not be sustained. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (307 ITR 137) similarly held that noting in the seized dairy found from the premises could not lead to additions since AO had not brought any corroborative material to support the same. The onus heavily lay on the revenue to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized dairy actually represented the sale made by the assessee, Such onus was…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…man 454) held that where AO did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to value of property and merely relied on the statement of seller, the additions could not be sustained. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (307 ITR 137) similarly held that noting in the seized dairy found from the premises could not lead to additions since AO had not brought any corroborative material to support the same. The onus heavily lay on the revenue to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized dairy actually represented the sale made by the assessee, Such onus was…

Array Land Developers Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 379/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…man 454) held that where AO did not conduct any independent enquiry relating to value of property and merely relied on the statement of seller, the additions could not be sustained. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (307 ITR 137) similarly held that noting in the seized dairy found from the premises could not lead to additions since AO had not brought any corroborative material to support the same. The onus heavily lay on the revenue to prove with corroborative evidence that the entries in the seized dairy actually represented the sale made by the assessee, Such onus was…

Dy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 202/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

…following decisions;  Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain HUF in ITA No. 5385, 5516,5522, 5524 to 5526 & 5540 of 2021, dated 12.02.2021.  Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41,  CIT Vs Mauli Kumar Shah (2008) (2021) 307 ITR 137 Gujarat,  Savaliya Buildcon Vs DCIT, in ITA No 401/Ahd/2014 ,  DCIT Vs Hitesh M Bagdai IT (SS) No. 3/Rjt/2013. 20. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We IT(SS)A 48/SRT/2022 ACIT Vs. M/s Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co. & 4 Ors. appeals find that as per…

M/S. Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Surat vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, all the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 48 & 50/Srt/2022 (Ay: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner M/S Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co., Of Income Tax, 3/139, Parsi Sheri Navapura, Vs. Central Circle-2, Surat-395003. Surat. Pan: Aadfp 2740 F Appellant Respondednt

Section 127Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

…following decisions;  Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Anand Kumar Jain HUF in ITA No. 5385, 5516,5522, 5524 to 5526 & 5540 of 2021, dated 12.02.2021.  Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41,  CIT Vs Mauli Kumar Shah (2008) (2021) 307 ITR 137 Gujarat,  Savaliya Buildcon Vs DCIT, in ITA No 401/Ahd/2014 ,  DCIT Vs Hitesh M Bagdai IT (SS) No. 3/Rjt/2013. 20. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We IT(SS)A 48/SRT/2022 ACIT Vs. M/s Patel Madhavlal Maganlal & Co. & 4 Ors. appeals find that as per…

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 220/VIZ/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…profit @12.5% against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has strongly relied on the decision reported in the case of DCIT Vs. Angel Infra vide I.T(SS)A No.94/AHD/2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Maulik Kumar K.Shar [2008] 307 ITR 137, wherein, it was held that “where no enquiry was made by the AO to substantiate the veracity of loose paper to collect cogent material / evidence to establish that cash received by the assessee, the “other person” (there should be evidence of actual cash transaction to support the entries in the loose paper) no addition can be made in the hands o…

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 219/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…profit @12.5% against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has strongly relied on the decision reported in the case of DCIT Vs. Angel Infra vide I.T(SS)A No.94/AHD/2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Maulik Kumar K.Shar [2008] 307 ITR 137, wherein, it was held that “where no enquiry was made by the AO to substantiate the veracity of loose paper to collect cogent material / evidence to establish that cash received by the assessee, the “other person” (there should be evidence of actual cash transaction to support the entries in the loose paper) no addition can be made in the hands o…

Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 218/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…profit @12.5% against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has strongly relied on the decision reported in the case of DCIT Vs. Angel Infra vide I.T(SS)A No.94/AHD/2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Maulik Kumar K.Shar [2008] 307 ITR 137, wherein, it was held that “where no enquiry was made by the AO to substantiate the veracity of loose paper to collect cogent material / evidence to establish that cash received by the assessee, the “other person” (there should be evidence of actual cash transaction to support the entries in the loose paper) no addition can be made in the hands o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 177/VIZ/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…profit @12.5% against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has strongly relied on the decision reported in the case of DCIT Vs. Angel Infra vide I.T(SS)A No.94/AHD/2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Maulik Kumar K.Shar [2008] 307 ITR 137, wherein, it was held that “where no enquiry was made by the AO to substantiate the veracity of loose paper to collect cogent material / evidence to establish that cash received by the assessee, the “other person” (there should be evidence of actual cash transaction to support the entries in the loose paper) no addition can be made in the hands o…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centrl Circle-2, Rajahmundry vs. Dollars Colony Phase-1, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the cross appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 176/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.218-220/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 To2020-21) M/S Dollars Colony Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Income Tax Krishna Nagar, Venkateswarapuram Central Circle-2 Vijayawada Rajahmundry [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.176/Viz/2022 & 177/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19& 2019-20) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Dollars Colony Central Circle-2 Phase-1, D.No.40-3/1-46 Rajahmundry Krishna Nagar Venkateswarapuram Vijayawada [Pan : Aacad6957E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 21.02.2023 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…profit @12.5% against the addition made by the AO. The assessee has strongly relied on the decision reported in the case of DCIT Vs. Angel Infra vide I.T(SS)A No.94/AHD/2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Maulik Kumar K.Shar [2008] 307 ITR 137, wherein, it was held that “where no enquiry was made by the AO to substantiate the veracity of loose paper to collect cogent material / evidence to establish that cash received by the assessee, the “other person” (there should be evidence of actual cash transaction to support the entries in the loose paper) no addition can be made in the hands o…

Ashok Virambhai Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 7336/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153D

…(SC) 2. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 410 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad HC) 5. Navneet Jhamb Vs. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 332 (P &H HC) 6. CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC) 7. DCIT vs. Ashok Vihar (2020) 205 TTJ 547 (Raipur ITAT) 8. Shailesh P Gonawala Vs. ACIT (2012) 2 TTJ 345 (Ahd ITAT) P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Shri Ashok Virambhai Patel Vs. DCIT,CC-5(1) 9. Kotu Sarat Kumar Vs. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR (TRib) 147 (Viz ITAT) 10. Cascade Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 213 TTJ 491 (Mum ITAT) 11. Solitare World Pv…

Ashok Virambhai Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 7335/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153D

…(SC) 2. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 410 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad HC) 5. Navneet Jhamb Vs. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 332 (P &H HC) 6. CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC) 7. DCIT vs. Ashok Vihar (2020) 205 TTJ 547 (Raipur ITAT) 8. Shailesh P Gonawala Vs. ACIT (2012) 2 TTJ 345 (Ahd ITAT) P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Shri Ashok Virambhai Patel Vs. DCIT,CC-5(1) 9. Kotu Sarat Kumar Vs. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR (TRib) 147 (Viz ITAT) 10. Cascade Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 213 TTJ 491 (Mum ITAT) 11. Solitare World Pv…

Ashok Virambhai Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC - 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 7333/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153D

…(SC) 2. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 410 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad HC) 5. Navneet Jhamb Vs. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 332 (P &H HC) 6. CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC) 7. DCIT vs. Ashok Vihar (2020) 205 TTJ 547 (Raipur ITAT) 8. Shailesh P Gonawala Vs. ACIT (2012) 2 TTJ 345 (Ahd ITAT) P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Shri Ashok Virambhai Patel Vs. DCIT,CC-5(1) 9. Kotu Sarat Kumar Vs. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR (TRib) 147 (Viz ITAT) 10. Cascade Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 213 TTJ 491 (Mum ITAT) 11. Solitare World Pv…

Prakash Gems, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 7332/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153D

…(SC) 2. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 410 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad HC) 5. Navneet Jhamb Vs. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 332 (P &H HC) 6. CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC) 7. DCIT vs. Ashok Vihar (2020) 205 TTJ 547 (Raipur ITAT) 8. Shailesh P Gonawala Vs. ACIT (2012) 2 TTJ 345 (Ahd ITAT) P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Shri Ashok Virambhai Patel Vs. DCIT,CC-5(1) 9. Kotu Sarat Kumar Vs. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR (TRib) 147 (Viz ITAT) 10. Cascade Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 213 TTJ 491 (Mum ITAT) 11. Solitare World Pv…

Alkesh Patel (Prop. of M/S Umiya Gems), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 7328/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Achal Sharma
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153D

…(SC) 2. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & Ors (1980) 3 SCC 410 (SC) 3. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad HC) 5. Navneet Jhamb Vs. ACIT (2020) 422 ITR 332 (P &H HC) 6. CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj HC) 7. DCIT vs. Ashok Vihar (2020) 205 TTJ 547 (Raipur ITAT) 8. Shailesh P Gonawala Vs. ACIT (2012) 2 TTJ 345 (Ahd ITAT) P a g e | 4 6 Appeals Shri Ashok Virambhai Patel Vs. DCIT,CC-5(1) 9. Kotu Sarat Kumar Vs. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR (TRib) 147 (Viz ITAT) 10. Cascade Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2021) 213 TTJ 491 (Mum ITAT) 11. Solitare World Pv…