CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport

238 ITR 177High Court1999#529 most cited

What is CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport authority for?

The powers under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked when no unaccounted documents or incriminating material is found during a search. An assessment based on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) requires a nexus between the statement and evidence/material found during the search.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport · Section 132(4) · search and seizure · incriminating material · undisclosed income · statement under Section 132(4) · assessment based on statement · no unaccounted documents · Section 153A · Section 153C · block assessment · retraction of statement

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport

Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 322/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), (Formerly Known As M/S Vs. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Road, Mumbai-400020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Parida & &For Respondent: Mr. B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 148

…it is a case of recorded purchases and not otherwise and no cash element is involved. The Ld. counsels submit that merely on the basis of statement, no addition can be made. In this regard, reliance is placed by them on the decision in CIT v. Ramdas Motor Co. 238 ITR 177 (AP); CIT v. Indian Express 143 ITR 705 (Mad), Del. Iron Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 TLR 1975 (All); New Alfa v. DCIT (2005) 1 SOT 302 (Mum). Also relying on the decision in CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises (2013) 35 taxmann.com 384 (Bom), it is argued that merely because the assessee has failed to produce the party, it is not logical on the pa…