Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT v. Sreeni Printers

88 ITR 293High Court1973#1908 most cited

What is Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT v. Sreeni Printers authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made solely on the basis of a statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) without independent corroborating evidence. Similarly, a penalty cannot be levied merely on the basis of assessment order findings, allowing the assessee to challenge the underlying facts in penalty proceedings.

60

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT · 88 ITR 293 · section 132(4) · statement recorded during search · addition without corroboration · retracted statement · penalty proceedings · challenging assessment findings · evidentiary value of search statement · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 110section 193section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retracted statementretraction of statementsection 65bjewellery found during search

Judgments citing Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT v. Sreeni Printers

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…o. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, held that the assessee should be given opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293, held that it is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that admission made by him was in fact not correct and true. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the legal proposition above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in reducing substantial addition. [Para 4] 39. Hon'ble Allahabad Hi…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…o. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18, held that the assessee should be given opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293, held that it is an established principle of law that a party is entitled to show and prove that admission made by him was in fact not correct and true. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the legal proposition above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in reducing substantial addition. [Para 4] 39. Hon'ble Allahabad Hi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shyam Sunder Jindal, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…fect are the following decisions: Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IAC: 30 ITD 161(SB) Addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement recorded during search, that too, in violation of CBDT Instruction 47. Reference in this regard may be made to provisions of section 132(4) of the Act, which reads as under: "(4): The authorized officer may, during the course of the search or seiz…

DCIT-CC-1(3), Nagpur vs. R.B.S.D. and F.N. Das(Export Firm), Vizianagram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 69C

…at any admission made in the ignorance of the legal rights or under duress, cannot bind the maker of the admission. This right has been tested under Income-Tax Act and the same has been upheld by Punjab & Haryana High court in Kisan Lal Shivchand Raj V. CIT, (88 ITR 293). 5.6 It is humbly submitted that the CBDT has issued an instruction to its field officers vide F. No. 286 / 2 /2003-IT (INV) dated March 10, 2003 in following words- “Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search and seizure…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…v State of Kerala and Another [1973] 91 ITR 18 [SC]. - 2. Chitra Oevi vs ACIT [2002] 77 TTJ 640 JU] - 3. Abdul Qayume v CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404 (All) - 4. Jagdish Chand Gupta v ACIT [1996] 56 TTJ [Chd] 337 58 ITD 142 [Chd] - 5. Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT 88 ITR 293 [P & HJ 17)…. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of on-money payment or investment in construction can be made on the basis of admission u/s 132(4) de hors any incriminating evidence found during search. Moreover, we would like to discuss that the admission/surrender has to b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3662/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…ence can be drawn against the appellant merely on the basis of statement. It is establish principle of law that the party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is infact not correct and true as held in Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai 88 ITR 293 (P & H). 22. Now as far as the working given by the Special Auditor is concerned, it is observed that he has calculated extrapolated sales at Rs. 42,98,06,439/-for the entire block years which includes additional income offered by the appellant for the A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 on the basis of these annexures, in the following manner: 1. The…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3661/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…ence can be drawn against the appellant merely on the basis of statement. It is establish principle of law that the party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is infact not correct and true as held in Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai 88 ITR 293 (P & H). 22. Now as far as the working given by the Special Auditor is concerned, it is observed that he has calculated extrapolated sales at Rs. 42,98,06,439/-for the entire block years which includes additional income offered by the appellant for the A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 on the basis of these annexures, in the following manner: 1. The…

Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2819/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…ence can be drawn against the appellant merely on the basis of statement. It is establish principle of law that the party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is infact not correct and true as held in Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai 88 ITR 293 (P & H). 22. Now as far as the working given by the Special Auditor is concerned, it is observed that he has calculated extrapolated sales at Rs. 42,98,06,439/-for the entire block years which includes additional income offered by the appellant for the A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 on the basis of these annexures, in the following manner: 1. The…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2818/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 153ASection 40

…ence can be drawn against the appellant merely on the basis of statement. It is establish principle of law that the party is entitled to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is infact not correct and true as held in Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai 88 ITR 293 (P & H). 22. Now as far as the working given by the Special Auditor is concerned, it is observed that he has calculated extrapolated sales at Rs. 42,98,06,439/-for the entire block years which includes additional income offered by the appellant for the A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 on the basis of these annexures, in the following manner: 1. The…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (AY: 2010-11) IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (AY: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, ACIT, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (stationed at Bhopal) TT Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AMZPS9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) ITA No. 309/Ind/2023 (AY: 2012-13) DCIT Central, Shri Sharad Sharma, बनाम/ Gwalior H-3B, Nishant Colony, Vs. (stationed at Bhopal) 74 Bunglows, TT Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AMZPS9791…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (AY: 2010-11) IT(SS)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (AY: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, ACIT, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (stationed at Bhopal) TT Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AMZPS9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) ITA No. 309/Ind/2023 (AY: 2012-13) DCIT Central, Shri Sharad Sharma, बनाम/ Gwalior H-3B, Nishant Colony, Vs. (stationed at Bhopal) 74 Bunglows, TT Nagar, Bhopal (PAN: AMZPS9791…

The DCIT Central-3, Indore vs. M/S Hanuman Proessor, Burhanpur

ITA 169/IND/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Cit, M/S.Hanuman Processors, Central-3, Alamganj, बनाम/ Indore. Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aaafh7777 F

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,इंदौर"ायपीठ,इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIB.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. CIT, M/s.Hanuman Processors, Central-3, Alamganj, बनाम/ Indore. Burhanpur Vs. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) PAN: AAAFH7777 F C.O.No.7/Ind/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 169/Ind/2023) Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s.Hanuman Processors, Dy. CIT, Alamganj, Central-3, बनाम/ Burhanpur Indore. Vs. (CrossObjector/ Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri P.D.…

Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Varanasi vs. Shri Ashok Agrawal, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 23/VNS/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Bleshri Ashok Agrawal, Dy.Cit Central Circle, J-12/120, Dhoopchandi, Varanasi Jagatganj, Varanasi 221001

For Appellant: Shri V K Jindal & Sh Ashish JindalFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132(4)

…truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue". 5.5.13 In the case of Krishanlal Shivchand Rai Vs. CIT 88 ITR 293 (P & H) it has been held that, "it is an established principle of law that the party is entitle to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is in fact not correct and true". 5.5.14 In the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi Bench, reported in 100 TTJ (Del) 929/935 held that "it is to be noted that it is not possible to lead dire…

Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Varanasi vs. Dc/ACIT, CC, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/VNS/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Bleshri Ashok Agrawal, Dy.Cit Central Circle, J-12/120, Dhoopchandi, Varanasi Jagatganj, Varanasi 221001

For Appellant: Shri V K Jindal & Sh Ashish JindalFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132(4)

…truth of the matters stated therein. It is only a piece of evidence, the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made. It can be shown to be erroneous or untrue". 5.5.13 In the case of Krishanlal Shivchand Rai Vs. CIT 88 ITR 293 (P & H) it has been held that, "it is an established principle of law that the party is entitle to show and prove that the admission made by him probably is in fact not correct and true". 5.5.14 In the case of Rajesh Jain Vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi Bench, reported in 100 TTJ (Del) 929/935 held that "it is to be noted that it is not possible to lead dire…

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

…render has been made in return or at the time of asst. proceedings thus in this case no penalty should be imposed because the appellant has voluntarily surrendered the amount to buy peace. It is held in the judgement Of Kishanchand shivchand Rai VS CIT (1973) 88 ITR 293 (Punjab) That the mere fact of surrender could not be a necessarily addmision of the assessee that the surrender amount were his undisclosed income so such surrender alone could not be the basis of imposing penalty. Relying upon the above decision, Hon'ble Kamataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxguru.in 241 (K…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 703/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) It was submitted that the addition solely based upon the statement recorded during survey u/s 133A is not sufficient and assessee is entitled to retract from his offer by furnishing complete details of his income in the course of assessment proceedings. It was…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 702/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) It was submitted that the addition solely based upon the statement recorded during survey u/s 133A is not sufficient and assessee is entitled to retract from his offer by furnishing complete details of his income in the course of assessment proceedings. It was…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 701/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) It was submitted that the addition solely based upon the statement recorded during survey u/s 133A is not sufficient and assessee is entitled to retract from his offer by furnishing complete details of his income in the course of assessment proceedings. It was…

Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range, Kanpur vs. M/S.Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

ITA 582/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 145Section 148

…Madras) 6. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dhingra Metal Works [2010] 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) dated 04-10-2010 7. ACIT vs. Maya Trading Co. ITA No. 31 (AGRA) OF 2012 & C.O. NO. 20 (AGRA) OF 2012 dated OCTOBER 5, 2012 8. Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 9. Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 4 10. CBDT Instruction No. 286/2/2003(Inv) It was submitted that the addition solely based upon the statement recorded during survey u/s 133A is not sufficient and assessee is entitled to retract from his offer by furnishing complete details of his income in the course of assessment proceedings. It was…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have given anxious thought to the questions raised before us. We have carefully considered the orders of the lower authorities, the submissions made before us by the Revenue and the relevant seized materials.…