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addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under section 132(4) is not sustainable if that statement has been retracted and there is no corroborative material.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

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4443/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ce without corroborative material addition KamlaShanti Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4442/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ce without corroborative material addition KamlaShanti Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4441/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ce without corroborative material addition KamlaShanti Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Developers P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3) (4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ce without corroborative material addition KamlaShanti Developers Pvt. Ltd. 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4390/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4389/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4388/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4387/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4386/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4385/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashmi Realities, Mumbai vs. DCIT ()()-CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09,

ITA 4384/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. Nos.4384 To 4390/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Years:2008-09 To 2014-15) Kamlashmi Realities बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-3(4) Ground Floor, Shanti Vimal, P. 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. M. Road, Vile Parle East, Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaifk7966R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant Modi Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter In Short “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 09.04.2019 For A.Y. 2008-09 To Ay 2014-15. Since Issues Involved Are Common, All The Appeals For All The Assessment Year/Years (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”) Were Heard Together. Both The Parties Also Argued Them Together Raising Similar Arguments On These Issues. Accordingly, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Dispose All The Appeals By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…amlashmi Realties 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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Ladmarc Property P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cent. Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4383/MUM/2019[2014*15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4382/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4381/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4380/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4379/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4378/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamla Shanti Landmarc Property Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4377/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4350/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…

Kamlashri Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT (3)(4) CC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-

ITA 4349/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Ketki RajeshirkeFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikant Modi
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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) • TribhuvandasBhimji 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…