CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia

241 Taxmann 221High Court2016#2126 most cited

What is CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia authority for?

Loose sheets recovered from an assessee's premises constitute a 'document' as defined in Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

54

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia · 241 Taxmann 221 · Section 132(4) · loose sheets · document · search and seizure · income tax

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)section 23(4)section 142(3)section 158bbsection 245c(1)section 13(1)(c)(ii)retraction of statementsection 4(1)section 193section 196section 153b(1)(b)section 153c(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. T. Rangroopchand Chordia

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & 971/Del./2021 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia, vs. ACIT, CC – 26, 3 – 6, 323, Basheerbagh, New Delhi. Hyderabad – 500 029 (Telangana). (PAN : ABSPJ3944P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advcoate Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Order :…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & 971/Del./2021 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia, vs. ACIT, CC – 26, 3 – 6, 323, Basheerbagh, New Delhi. Hyderabad – 500 029 (Telangana). (PAN : ABSPJ3944P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advcoate Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Order :…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & 971/Del./2021 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia, vs. ACIT, CC – 26, 3 – 6, 323, Basheerbagh, New Delhi. Hyderabad – 500 029 (Telangana). (PAN : ABSPJ3944P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advcoate Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Order :…

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA Nos.968, 969, 970 & 971/Del./2021 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Shri Om Prakash Jakhotia, vs. ACIT, CC – 26, 3 – 6, 323, Basheerbagh, New Delhi. Hyderabad – 500 029 (Telangana). (PAN : ABSPJ3944P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Bharti Sharma, Advcoate Ms. Vanshika Taneja, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 13.01.2022 Date of Order :…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 170/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 169/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 168/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 167/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 166/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 165/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Cir-1, Madurai vs. Late D Chandran, Turicorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 164/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 131/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 130/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai vs. C Nilavathy, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 124/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.124, 130 & 131/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. C. Nilavathy, Income Tax, No.137A, Pudurpandiapuram, Central Circle -1, Tuticorin 628 002. Madurai.

For Appellant: Dr. S. Bharath, IRS, CITFor Respondent: Shri. K.G. Raghunath, Adv
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e assessee had maintained duplicate sets of Books of Accounts and hence, excess consideration would have passed to the vendor. 3 The ld.CIT(A) ought to have followed decision of the Hon’ Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs.Rangroop Chand Chordia (241 Taxmann 221) that loose sheets constitute documents u/s. 132 of the Act. 3.1 The ld.CrT(A) failed to appreciate that the scribblings found during the course of search u/s.132 are incriminating documents and the assessing Officer has rightly made an addition based on the notings in the seized material and arriving at the sale price accordingly. 3.2 The…