CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)

86 ITD 13Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#1615 most cited

What is CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) authority for?

Additions to income based on documents or entries recovered from a third party are not sustainable if the assessee was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the third party or if the entries lack corroborative evidence.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sumeet Verma · Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT · 86 ITD 13 · third party documents · cross-examination · corroborative evidence · addition to income · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 69 · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 69Section 143(3)Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionarbitrary and capricioussection 132(5)section 132(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 158b(b)third party informationpeak credit theorysection 100section 158bb(1)section 132(4a)section 153(c)(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…v. Umesh Ishrani xi) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xii) 223 Taxman 44 (All) CIT v. Devendra Kumar Singhal xiii) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) CIT v. Maulik Kumar K. Shah (extracted at page 310 of Paper Book) xiv) 86 ITD 13 (Del) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. ACIT (extracted at pages 310-311 of Paper Book) xv) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. Harmohinder Kaur v. DCIT (extracted at page 311 of Paper Book) xvi) ITA Nos 3546, 3547 and 3549/D/2012 dated 26.8.2016 Mukesh Garg v. DIT 41 BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. SUCH BURDEN HAS…

DODHIA SYNTHETICS LIMITED,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the\nlegal issue

ITA 2190/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

….T.A No. 819/MUM/2012).\n\nvii.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs.\nLayer Exports P. Ltd. (2017) [(184 TTJ 469) (Mит.)].\n\nviii.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Amarjit\nSingh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT (2003) [(86 ITD 13) (Delhi)].\n\nix.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs.\nKranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A No. 1229/MUM/2013).\n\nx.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Ashwani\nKumar vs. ITO (39 ITD 183) (Delhi).\n\nxi.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Additional\nITO vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons (1993)…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -3, THANE, THANE vs. DODHIA SYNTHETICS LIMITED, BHIWANDI

The appeal of the assessee is Allowed on the\nlegal issue

ITA 2105/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

…3\n& I.T.A No. 819/MUM/2012).\nvii. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs.\nLayer Exports P. Ltd. (2017) [(184 TTJ 469) (Mum.)].\nviii. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Amarjit\nSingh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT (2003) [(86 ITD 13) (Delhi)].\nix. Decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs.\nKranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A No. 1229/MUM/2013).\nx.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Ashwani\nKumar vs. ITO (39 ITD 183) (Delhi).\nx i.\nDecision of Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Additional\nITO vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons (1993) [(45…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANJU DIAMONDS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ine and assessee being afforded any opportunity to cross examine and Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) it In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) it In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) it was held that where the document in questioned was not was held that where the document in questioned was not was held that where the document in questioned was not recovered from the assessee's possession b…

AKESH SANGEMERMER(P) LTD,INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. ITO WARD 1 KISHANGARH, CITY ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…entries in the ledger of a firm (third party) did not represent assessce's income from undisclosed sources, was finding of the fact not giving rise to any referable question of law. D. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) "It has been held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee's possession but was recovered from N's possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross-examination and further, N's testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue's case t…

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

…ents in support of our above findings: (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 84 16. In this decision also, which is rendered by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal, it is seen that the bench has held that entries relie…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…be circumstantial evidences to support that this entry really represent cash of Rs. 60 lakhs. There is no such evidence found by the Revenue in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) ™ Held that any noting in the loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but nothings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of pa…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla (1988) 8 SSC 410 and Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 172 250 I 38 Taxman 190 (SC). 29. In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi), it has been held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee's possession but was recovered from N's possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross-examination and further, N's testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue's case t…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla (1988) 8 SSC 410 and Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 172 250 I 38 Taxman 190 (SC). 29. In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi), it has been held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee's possession but was recovered from N's possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross-examination and further, N's testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue's case t…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla (1988) 8 SSC 410 and Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 172 250 I 38 Taxman 190 (SC). 29. In Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi), it has been held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee's possession but was recovered from N's possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross-examination and further, N's testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue's case t…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…08 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram xv) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) (TM) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT xvi) ITA No. 5516 & 5517/D/2012 ACIT vs. Anil Khandelwal xvii) ITA Nos 336/D/2012 and 5515/D/2013 dated 29.11.2016 SamtaKhinda v. ACIT xviii) ITA No. 1314/D/2023 dated 7.3.2024;Surender Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (pages 395-403 of JPB) “7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash tr…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…08 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram xv) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) (TM) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT xvi) ITA No. 5516 & 5517/D/2012 ACIT vs. Anil Khandelwal xvii) ITA Nos 336/D/2012 and 5515/D/2013 dated 29.11.2016 SamtaKhinda v. ACIT xviii) ITA No. 1314/D/2023 dated 7.3.2024;Surender Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (pages 395-403 of JPB) “7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash tr…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…08 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram xv) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) (TM) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT xvi) ITA No. 5516 & 5517/D/2012 ACIT vs. Anil Khandelwal xvii) ITA Nos 336/D/2012 and 5515/D/2013 dated 29.11.2016 SamtaKhinda v. ACIT xviii) ITA No. 1314/D/2023 dated 7.3.2024;Surender Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (pages 395-403 of JPB) “7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash tr…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…08 of 2011 dated 12.09.2012 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Khosla Ice & General Mills xii) ITA No. 507/2009 dated 27.04.2010 CIT vs. Samrat Builders xiii) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills xiv) 63 ITD 203 (TM) (Mad) ITO vs. M. A. Chidambaram xv) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) (TM) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT xvi) ITA No. 5516 & 5517/D/2012 ACIT vs. Anil Khandelwal xvii) ITA Nos 336/D/2012 and 5515/D/2013 dated 29.11.2016 SamtaKhinda v. ACIT xviii) ITA No. 1314/D/2023 dated 7.3.2024;Surender Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (pages 395-403 of JPB) “7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee did not enter into any cash tr…

LAXMI MEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 756/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132

…ta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) Laxmi Memorial Education Trust, Mangalore Page 103 of 108 (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 5.34 In our opinion, there is no documentary evidence either to support the statements of employees or of the parents of the students; and 5.35 F…

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…en, Kasargod, Kerala Page 18 of 62 (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be delete…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 466/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…en, Kasargod, Kerala Page 18 of 62 (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be delete…

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

ITA 465/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 153ASection 69B

…above findings: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 4.20 Thus, placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the basis of the above loose slips should be deleted in the assessment year 20…

Showing 1–20 of 70 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) (86 ITD 13) — Cited in 70 Judgments | BharatTax