Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal

288 CTR 579High Court2016#3571 most cited

What is Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal authority for?

A statement recorded during a search under section 132(4) cannot form the sole basis for assessment additions unless corroborated by incriminating material recovered during the search. Post-search inquiry statements are also not considered incriminating material.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal · 288 CTR 579 · section 132(4) · incriminating material · search · post search inquiry · statement recorded during search · corroboration

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 147Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 132

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 181section 65(b)section 108section 134section 194qsection 9(1)(ii)section 80abretraction of statementsection 193section 65b(4)section 73

Judgments citing Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…h Trading Co Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax Karnataka Vs. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh); Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat)" (Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in this case further held as under, "In view of the law discussed above, it must be held that statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act and later confirmed in statement recorded under Section 131 of the Act, cannot be discarded simply by observing that the assessee has retra…

Mesers Ram Avtar Agrawal Road Construction Private Limited, Bilaspur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Raipur

ITA 239/RPR/2019[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.239/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ram Avtar Agrawal Road Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, V.R Plaza, Bilaspur (C.G.). Pan : Aaccr6199N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Amit M Jain, Advocate Revenue By :Shri P.K Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amit M Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153A

…t. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC-II, Raipur of the search and seizure operations is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Chetnaben J Shah (Legal heir of Jagdish Chandra) Vs. ITO (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Guj). It was held by the Hon’ble High Court that there must be some material substance either in the form of documents or alike to justify an addition made pursuant to search proceedings. It was further observed that a statement recorded u/s. 132(4), and that too retracted, could not on a standalone basis justify an addition in the hands of the…

ACIT- CC - 4(2), Mumbai vs. K.Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2527/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2526/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT-CC -4(2), Mumbai vs. K . Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2525/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT- CC- 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2524/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2523/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT- CC- 4 (2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2522/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

ACIT - CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 2521/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 69Section 69C

…ecorded by both, the CIT(A) as well as the Appellate Tribunal, we are of the view that we should not disturb the finding of facts. None of the questions as proposed by the Revenue could be termed as substantial question of law.” (ii) Chetnaben J Shah Vs ITO (288 CTR 579) (Guj HC) 30. In this case, it is noted that in the course of search, the assessee had admitted in the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that it was regularly purchasing and selling shares which were not forming part of the regular books and disclosed a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- to have been earned over the years. In the course of assessment, the asse…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…usive to held the issue against the assessee. The court further held that 18 I.T.A. No.3374/CHNY/2019 it was open to the assessee, who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chetnaben Shah v. ITO [2016] 288 CTR 579, held that “mere speculation cannot be a ground for addition. There must be a substance either in the form of documents or the like to arrive at a ground for addition of income”. Thus, sum and substance of the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Courts are that even though, admission is a piece of evidence, but it is not conclusive and the Revenue au…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4875/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4873 TO 4875/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, Vs. M/S MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS ROOM NO. 355, 3RD FLOOR, (P) LTD., JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, A-121, ASHOK VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110 055 PHASE-1, NEW DELHI (PAN AAACM0118Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Assessee by Sh. S.K. Gupta, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIHU, JM These 03 appeals are filed by the Revenue against the respective Orders passed by…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4874/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4873 TO 4875/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, Vs. M/S MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS ROOM NO. 355, 3RD FLOOR, (P) LTD., JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, A-121, ASHOK VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110 055 PHASE-1, NEW DELHI (PAN AAACM0118Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Assessee by Sh. S.K. Gupta, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIHU, JM These 03 appeals are filed by the Revenue against the respective Orders passed by…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 4873/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4873 TO 4875/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, Vs. M/S MAHESH WOOD PRODUCTS ROOM NO. 355, 3RD FLOOR, (P) LTD., JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, A-121, ASHOK VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 110 055 PHASE-1, NEW DELHI (PAN AAACM0118Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT(DR) Assessee by Sh. S.K. Gupta, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIHU, JM These 03 appeals are filed by the Revenue against the respective Orders passed by…