Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

290 CTR 263High Court2016#102 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal authority for?

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

583

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Harjeev Aggarwal · section 132(4) · section 158BB(1) · incriminating material · undisclosed income · search and seizure · statement recorded · income tax assessment

Also reported as

70 Taxmann.com 95

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 158bbsection 158basection 153(a)section 201(3)section 150unexplained jewellerystatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 153/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…

ACIT, CC-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Mukut Behari Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

ITA 152/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 164 & 165/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12 cuke The Assistant Commissioner of Shri Ramesh Kumar Mantri Income-tax, Vs. 211, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Central Circle-4, Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACTPM 0737 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 15 & 16/JP/2020 (Arising…

Naresh Kumar Arora, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA shri Rajendra Sisodia,AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 259/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Naresh Kumar Arora The DCIT C-242, Malviya Nagar Vs. Circle-6 Jaipur – 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPA 5970 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C…

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

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

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

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

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

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

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

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

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

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

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

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

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

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

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

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

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

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

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

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

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND 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…

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

…corded u/s 132(4) of the Act itself cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…