Common Cause v. UOI

448 ITR 485High Court2022#2897 most cited

What is Common Cause v. UOI authority for?

Additions to income cannot be sustained solely on the basis of information found in electronic devices or loose papers seized from third parties if that information is not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Common Cause v UOI · 448 ITR 485 · addition cannot be sustained · third party statement · independent corroborative evidence · seized material · assessee-trust · capitation fees

Also reported as

222 Taxmann 64

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 132Section 143(2)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 127Section 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 153(c)(1)section 36(i)(va)freebies to doctorsretraction of statementsection 153(c)section 131(1)true and full disclosurestatement under section 132(4)corpus donationsection 132(4a)section 153(a)

Judgments citing Common Cause v. UOI

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Tirupur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…no addition can be sustained solely on the basis of such material without correlating to the property transaction held by the assessee. 54. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT [2022] 448 ITR 485 (Karnataka), which pertains to an income-tax matter. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (supra), held that loose sheets of paper or diaries found during the course of search, which are not established to form part of…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gnanaguru Lavanya, Tirupur

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…no addition can be sustained solely on the basis of such material without correlating to the property transaction held by the assessee. 54. A similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT [2022] 448 ITR 485 (Karnataka), which pertains to an income-tax matter. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (supra), held that loose sheets of paper or diaries found during the course of search, which are not established to form part of…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M B Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3923/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-20, Delhi vs. M. B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3874/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 20, Delhi vs. M.B. Power (Madhaya Pradesh) Ltd, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3870/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited, South East Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…g out that the particular third person against whom the allegations have been levelled was in fact involved in the matter or he has done some act during that period, which may have co-relations with the random entries.” In Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 485, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has considered almost identical fact situation. In this case, besides the search on the assessee, a search was also conducted on one Mr. Rajendran at New Delhi. During the course of search on Mr. Rajendran, certain diaries & entries relating to affairs of the assessee were found. Statement of Mr. Rajendran was record…

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 837/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…n the case of one, Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma. This decision flows from single judge decision of Karnataka high court in the case of same assessee reported as Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 146 taxmann.com 553 (Karnataka)/[2022] 448 ITR 485 (Karnataka). These cases are related to 153C proceedings. The assessee first approached the Karnataka High Court against notices issued u/s 153C in writ petitions nos. 9937 to 9939, 9945 & 9946 of 2022. The issue involved were related to 1. Inadmissibility of Evidence: The court's primary and most detailed finding was that the entire case was bui…

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 836/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manthan ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…n the case of one, Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma. This decision flows from single judge decision of Karnataka high court in the case of same assessee reported as Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 146 taxmann.com 553 (Karnataka)/[2022] 448 ITR 485 (Karnataka). These cases are related to 153C proceedings. The assessee first approached the Karnataka High Court against notices issued u/s 153C in writ petitions nos. 9937 to 9939, 9945 & 9946 of 2022. The issue involved were related to 1. Inadmissibility of Evidence: The court's primary and most detailed finding was that the entire case was bui…

Wockhardt Limited, Aurangabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 835/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.837, 835 & 836/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Wockhardt Limited, D-4, Midc, Chikalthana, Aurangabad-431006 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune Pan : Aaacw2472M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Manthan Shah Shri Amit Bobde 13-08-2025 10-11-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Above Three Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order(S) All Dated 27.01.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune ["Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years ("Ays") 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since, The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…n the case of one, Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma. This decision flows from single judge decision of Karnataka high court in the case of same assessee reported as Sunil Kumar Sharma vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 146 taxmann.com 553 (Karnataka)/[2022] 448 ITR 485 (Karnataka). These cases are related to 153C proceedings. The assessee first approached the Karnataka High Court against notices issued u/s 153C in writ petitions nos. 9937 to 9939, 9945 & 9946 of 2022. The issue involved were related to 1. Inadmissibility of Evidence: The court's primary and most detailed finding was that the entire case was bui…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…ession of the employees of the assessee-trust are not sufficient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2275/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…ession of the employees of the assessee-trust are not sufficient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws 43 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

DCIT Central Circle 7 1, Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws 43 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

DCIT Central Circle 7 (1), Mumbai vs. Ramrao Adik Educ Society, Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…ession of the employees of the assessee-trust are not sufficient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…ession of the employees of the assessee-trust are not sufficient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1514/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…in are not sufficient to fasten liability on the assessee, the impugned addition requires to be deleted. 44 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CA
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 9

…that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws 44 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

Ramrao Adik Education Society, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 1511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws 44 ITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025 Ramrao Adik Education Society (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case…

Common Cause v. UOI (448 ITR 485) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax