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addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under section 132(4) is not sustainable if that statement has been retracted and there is no corroborative material.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

Rishi Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4846/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 397 ITR 82 has held “that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal 369 ITR 171 wherein it is held “that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof, shall not be used in evidence against the persons who made such statement.” 15. With regard to the retraction of the statement, it was held that, “If the statement is not retracted, the same can constitute the sole basis for the authorities to pass a…

Rishi Bansal, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4845/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4845/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Ita No. 4846/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Rishi Bansal, Vs Dcit, 132, Doon Palm City, Central Circle, Pathri Bagh, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akvpb7754R Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Dehradun Dated 31.03.2016. 2. In Ita No. 4845/Del/2016, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That The Impugned Proceeding Initiated U/S 153A & Passing The Impugned Order Under That Section Is Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction & Addition Are Also Made Without Any Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. That Having Regard To The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Which Was Made By The Ao Only On The Basis Of Alleged Statement Which Has Even Being Retracted On 09.07.2012 By The Assessee. Thus The Addition Is Not Sustainable. 3. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Making Addition Of Rs.50 Lacs Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.“

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 397 ITR 82 has held “that statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material.” 14. Further, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal 369 ITR 171 wherein it is held “that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof, shall not be used in evidence against the persons who made such statement.” 15. With regard to the retraction of the statement, it was held that, “If the statement is not retracted, the same can constitute the sole basis for the authorities to pass a…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. 4. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del). 6. CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del) 8. CIT v Sunil Aggarwal 379 ITR 367 (Del) 9. Roger Enterprise Ltd vs. CIT 382 ITR 639 (Del) 10. Ms. Farrah Marker vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA.No.3801/Mum/20111 dated 27.04.2016. 11. Ms. Malti Ghan Shyambhai Patadia vs. ITO ITA.No.3400/Ahd/2015 dated 06.02.2017. 12. M/s Rainbow International (P) Ltd vs. ITO ITA.No.3104/DeI/2013 dated 10.05.2016. 7.4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee…

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP). In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP). In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as binding…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1371/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1369/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1368/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT-(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1367/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Landmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Central Circle, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1366/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

Kamla Lamdmarc Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT(3)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1365/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi &For Respondent: Shri Neelam Shukla
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…se 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) 29 ITA.NO.1366/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10)& Other appeals KamlaLandmarc Enterprises& other assessees 48.…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…is a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP).In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as bindin…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…is a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP).In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as bindin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…is a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP).In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as bindin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…is a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP).In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as bindin…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…is a specific ground taken for retracting a statement, that it was made under pressure, such a statement cannot be the sole basis, unless corroborated. Gajjam Chand Yellappa v I.T.O. (2015) 370 ITR 671 (T&AP).In the case of CTI v Naresh Kumar Agarwal (2014) 369 ITR 171 (T&AP) it was held that, where the assessee retracts the statement admitting undisclosed income on the plea that it was recorded under threat or coercion, with no evidence to support the admitted income, the burden of proof is on the Assessing officer to establish his conclusion. A statement which is not substantiated cannot be taken as bindin…

Sachin Pareek, Surat vs. DCIT (Centrel) Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1683/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1367/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (HUF), Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/s. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/o. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQHS5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1365/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/o. 408, S…

M/S. Sun Diam, Mumbai vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1578/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1367/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (HUF), Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/s. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/o. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQHS5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1365/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/o. 408, S…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Choudhary HUF, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1367/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1367/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (HUF), Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/s. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/o. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQHS5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1365/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/o. 408, S…