How many judgments cite CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram?

108 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (282 ITR 259), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153A, Section 292C, Section 69C, Section 69B.

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram

282 ITR 259High Court2006#1004 most cited

What is CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram authority for?

Seized loose sheets or unsigned documents discovered during a search operation possess admissible evidentiary value and can form the basis for income additions if corroborated by external evidence, such as matching payments, business records, or corroborative statements.

108

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram · 282 ITR 259 · Section 132 · Section 153A · Section 292C · seized loose sheets · unsigned documents · evidentiary value · corroboration · additions to income · on-money transactions · unexplained cash

Also reported as

155 Taxmann 454

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 153A Section 292C Section 69C Section 69B Section 115BBE Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theory transferee company section 292c section 131(1a)section 158bd section 132(4a)dumb documents section 65b section 65 panchnama section 34 on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 SH. VIKAS KAPOOR, VS ACIT, FLAT NO. 1, POCKET-A1, CENTRAL CIRCLE-04, SECTOR-07, NEW DELHI ROHINI, DELHI -110 085 C/O SABHARWAL & PARTNERS, 4819/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI – 110 002 (PAN: AHRPK4150F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. & SH. SUDHIR MATHUR, ADV. Department by : MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the impugned Order dated 27.9.2016 of Ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi pertaining to assess…

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 5515/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 336/DEL/2012 AND 5515/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 SAMTA KHINDA ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-22, 2, GOLDEN GATE, WESTEND VS. NEW DELHI GREEN, RAJOKARI, NEW DELHI – 110 038 (PAN: ABCPS2929M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CA Department by : Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Assessee has filed 02 appeals against the separate impugned Orders of Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 one is rela…

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 378/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 377 & 378/DEL/2012 A.YRS. : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S HABITAT ROYALE PROJECTS VS. ACIT, CC-22, NEW DELHI PVT. LTD., 2, GOLDEN GATE, WESTEND GREEN, RAJOKARI, NEW DELHI – 110 038 (PAN: AABCH4891A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CA Department by : Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Assessee has filed 02 appeals against the separate impugned Orders of Ld. CIT(A)-III, New Delhi pertaining to assessment years 20…

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 377/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 336/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

Sea Shell Estate Development P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 821/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti SatheFor Respondent: Shri Mohammed Rizwan

…l submitted that the statements in which contradictory replies were given cannot be relied upon. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Nahar Spinning Mills, 8 SOT 6 and CIT V P.V. Kalyanasundaram, 282 ITR 259 (Mad). The Ld. Counsel submitted that identical addition made in Assessment Year 2006-07 has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Revenue has accepted the decision rendered by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. 4 M/s. Sea Shell Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. Counsel further submitted that the impugned addition is liable to be deleted in view of various evidenc…

Jairam G. Chawla, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1268/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Years: 2008-09 Jairam G. Chawla, Ito Wd 10(1)(2) Gr Floor, Soni House, 25 बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Nehru Rd, Santacruz (E), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai -400055 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aadpc2376C Assessment Years: 2008-09 Deepa J. Chawla, Ito Wd 10(1)(2) Gr Floor, Soni House, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan 25 Nehru Rd, Mumbai Vs. Santacruz (E), Mumbai -400055 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No. Aadoc2375B Appellant By Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By Shri Alok Johri (Cit-Dr)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69B

…proper inquiries and bringing on record cogent evidences. The bare statement of the seller is not sufficient to enable the AO to make addition in the hands of the assessee as was held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. DE Kalyan Sundaram 282 ITR 259. This judgment was subsequently affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported at 294 ITR 49. Identical issue has been decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on the similar lines in the case of CIT vs. Saffire Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 116 DTR 385 (Bom) (order dated 2nd March 2015), by affirming the view taken by the Tribunal that onus was u…

CIT vs. Narinder Kr Budhiraja

ITA - 1095 / 2011HC Delhi01 Jul 2014

For Appellant: Mr Roy ChaudhuriFor Respondent: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Rishabh Kapoor, Mr Sohil

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

…he Tribunal and contended that an addition under Section 69B of the Act could not be made only on the basis of a statement made by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of a division bench of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 in support of his contention that an addition of deemed income on account of unexplained investment could not be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded by the Income Tax Authorities without any independent corroborative evidence. The assessee also referred to the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Kalyansundaram: 2…