CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

369 ITR 171High Court2014#332 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil Agarwal ( authority for?

An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under section 132(4) is not sustainable if that statement has been retracted and there is no corroborative material.

254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil Agarwal · 369 ITR 171 · section 132(4) · retracted statement · corroborative material · evidentiary value · search and seizure · undisclosed income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 147Section 69ASection 69CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 153(a)section 158bbaccumulated profitsretracted statementsection 94section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)deemed dividendsection 268aretraction of statement

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) 16 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be per…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) 16 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be per…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) 16 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be per…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 132oSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…and in most such cases, are subsequently retracted. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that such statements, which are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of an assessee. In CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2014] 369 ITR 171 (T&AP), a Division Bench of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which is retracted cannot constitute a basis for an order under section 158BC of the Act....” 10. Now, coming to the aspect, viz., the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search ac…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3, Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 132oSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…and in most such cases, are subsequently retracted. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that such statements, which are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of an assessee. In CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2014] 369 ITR 171 (T&AP), a Division Bench of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act which is retracted cannot constitute a basis for an order under section 158BC of the Act....” 10. Now, coming to the aspect, viz., the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search ac…

M/S. Kakda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर"ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Kakda Steel Private ITO-2(1) बनाम/ Limited, Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: AABCK 5877 F Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Smt. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 28.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 27.08.2019passed by learne…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2165/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2164/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2163/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2162/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

ACIT. -CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2161/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

ACIT, CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka

In the result, the appeal

ITA 2160/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), M/S Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., Old Cgo Building, 804, No. 7 G.K. Temple Street, Chickpet Vs. 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Cross Bengaluru, Mumbai-400020. Karnataka-560 053 Pan No. Aaccg 9397 F Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit- Dr : Assessee By None Date Of Hearing : 27/10/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022

For Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT- DR

…e basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and ier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in also the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 3 vs. M/S Pgf Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/530/2019HC Delhi14 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 158Section 158B

…ndalone basis, without any reference to material found/discovered during the search would not empower the AO to make block assessment merely because of any admission made by Assessee during the search operation. Similarly, this Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal: 379 ITR 367 has held that when a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, 1961 is retracted, then, the AO would require some corroborative material before making any additions/disallowances on the basis of the statement. Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:15.11.2022 10:39:05 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2022/…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 3 vs. M/S Pgf Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/528/2019HC Delhi14 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 158Section 158B

…ndalone basis, without any reference to material found/discovered during the search would not empower the AO to make block assessment merely because of any admission made by Assessee during the search operation. Similarly, this Court in CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal: 379 ITR 367 has held that when a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, 1961 is retracted, then, the AO would require some corroborative material before making any additions/disallowances on the basis of the statement. Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:15.11.2022 10:39:05 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2022/…

DCIT (CC) 7(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. La Trendz Fabrica Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1538/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…22, 23, 24 & 25/MUM/2022 M/s. La TrendzFabrica Pvt. Ltd.,  CIT vs. M.P. Scrap Traders [2015] 372 ITR 507 (Gujarat)  CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal [2015] 231 Taxman 392 (Delhi)  CIT vs. Tara Chand Mahipal [2016] 65 com29 (Calcutta)  CIT vs. Sunil Aggarwal [2015] 379 ITR 367 (Delhi) 17. Thus, it is submitted that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act does not constitute incriminating material found as a result of search. In view of the addition can be made only qua the incriminating material found as a result of search which is none in the instant case. 18. Further Ld. AR submitted that, even after the…

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1050/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1049/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1048/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC - 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1047/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Micro Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC - 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-

ITA 1046/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1046/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1047/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1048/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1049/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.1050/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Micro Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) C/O Rajendra & Associates 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. House, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm4634P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…