DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

159 Taxmann.com 179High Court2024#297 most cited

What is DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma authority for?

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

269

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma · section 153C · incriminating material · loose jottings · books of account · satisfaction note · assessment year specific · search and seizure assessment · section 132 · Karnataka High Court · Supreme Court approval

Also reported as

469 ITR 197

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 144Section 115BBESection 292CSection 153D

Issues it is cited on

section 153b(i)(a)section 132(8)section 132(9a)section 153(1)(a)section 158bdsection 145aincome tax settlement commissiondumb documentsvaluation of sharessection 65bsection 65section 144a

Judgments citing DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Dentral Circle - 03, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2507/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

…l the years from AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 in consolidated manner and there is no specific reference to the fact that the Satisfaction Note is incriminating material found for impugned AY 2014-15. Ld. Counsel has relied the decision in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Kar) (para 53) as approved by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 271 (SC) and Blue Ocean Travels P Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA 3281/Del/2024 dt. 4.12.24 (Del)(Trib); Agni Vishnu Ventures P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 460 ITR 478 (Mad), to contend that it is necessary that the satisfaction note should be illustrative of the fact as to which AY,…

Zenith Portfolio and Insurance Advisors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2506/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 153D

…l the years from AY 2010-11 to 2016-17 in consolidated manner and there is no specific reference to the fact that the Satisfaction Note is incriminating material found for impugned AY 2014-15. Ld. Counsel has relied the decision in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Kar) (para 53) as approved by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 271 (SC) and Blue Ocean Travels P Ltd. Vs. DCIT ITA 3281/Del/2024 dt. 4.12.24 (Del)(Trib); Agni Vishnu Ventures P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 460 ITR 478 (Mad), to contend that it is necessary that the satisfaction note should be illustrative of the fact as to which AY,…

White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5130/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2021-22 White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 306, Suneja Tower Ii, Central Circle-29, Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi. Desu Colony So, West Delhi, New Delhi– 110 058. Pan: Aaccw1923F

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT- DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2021-22 White Orchid Hospitality (P) Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 306, Suneja Tower II, Central Circle-29, Distt. Centre, Janakpuri, Delhi. DESU Colony SO, West Delhi, New Delhi– 110 058. PAN: AACCW1923F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms Rinky Sharma, ITP & Shri Anmol Jha, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026 ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: The appeal…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1005/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Reve…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1004/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Reve…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1003/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Reve…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1002/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Reve…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1001/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Hyderabad Pan:Abfpb6416P (Appellant) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा /Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: | Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: | 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed Separate Petitions For Condonation Of Delay Along With Copies Of The Affidavits Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay & Praying For Condonation Of The Same. After Considering The Reasons Stated By The Assessee & Upon Hearing The Submissions Of The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr”), We Are Satisfied That The Delay Was Due To Reasonable Cause. Accordingly, The Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Are Condoned & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee In

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CA
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para 53, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the sai…

Bharat Kumar Bansal, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1000/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1000 To 1006/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20) Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad Of Income Tax Pan:Abfpb6416P Central Circle 2(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Seven Appeals Are Filed By Shri Bharat Kumar Bansal (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. Cit(A)”) All Dated 07.03.2025 For The A.Ys. 2013- 14 To 2019-20. Since Common & Identical Issues Are Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, We Find There Is A Delay Of 06 Days In Filing Of All These Appeals Before This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Page 1 Of 9

For Appellant: Shri A Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S. Arun Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 153C

…hich, at best, can pertain only to Assessment Year 2019-20, and there is no material on record linking the seized document to the other assessment years. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (469 ITR 197) has categorically held, at para no. 53 of the judgment, that separate satisfaction is required to be recorded under section 153C of the Act for each assessment year, and that recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years would vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. We further note that the SLP filed by the Reve…

G S Automobiles Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-6, Delhi

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

ITA 4289/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmang.S. Automobiles Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 6, B – 26, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 020. (Pan : Aadcg1150B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 24 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.06.2025 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Passed By Ld. Ao U/S 153C Of The Act As Well As Appellate Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Are Bad In Law & Are Passed In Contravention Of Prevailing Law As Well As Facts Of The Case, Therefore Liable To Be Annulled. 2. That Assumption Of Jurisdiction Of Ld. Ao In Consequence Of Order Passed By Ld. Pcit U/S 127(3) Of The Act Of The Act Is Illegal & Not Tenable Under The Law Because Of Said Order Being Mechanical & Being Passed

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER G.S. Automobiles Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Central Circle 6, B – 26, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi. Delhi – 110 020. (PAN : AADCG1150B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Order : 30.12.2025 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),…

Umaya Developers Private Limited, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result the orders of the Ld

ITA 1477/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 131Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 153DSection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1476 & 1477/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Umaya Developers Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner I, Trinity Complex, of Income Tax, Mangalore-575 001 Central Circle-1, Vs. PAN: AABCU1944P Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate : Shri Subramanian, JCIT DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. Both these appeals are file…

Umaya Developers Private Limited, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result the orders of the Ld

ITA 1476/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate
Section 131Section 132Section 143Section 153CSection 153DSection 270A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1476 & 1477/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Umaya Developers Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner I, Trinity Complex, of Income Tax, Mangalore-575 001 Central Circle-1, Vs. PAN: AABCU1944P Mangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate : Shri Subramanian, JCIT DR Revenue by Date of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT 1. Both these appeals are file…

ACIT Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITANo.4444/MUM/2024 (A.Y.– 2020-21) ITA No. 4448/MUM/2024 (A.Y. – 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner of v/s. Kalyanee Fortune Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) बनाम Constructions Room No. 902, Pratishtha 3AA Edena, 3rd Floor 97 M.K. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020, 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALFK9451E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4444/MUM/2024 (A.Y.- 2020-21) ITA No. 4445/MUM/2024 (A.Y. – 2018-19) ITA No. 4448/MUM/2024 (A.Y. – 2017-18) ITA No. 5779/MUM/2024 (A.Y. – 2019-20) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) Room No. 902, Pratishtha Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALFK9451E Appellant/अपीलार्थी Assessee by : Revenue by : Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement v/s. बनाम .. Kalyanee Fortune Constru…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITANo.4444/MUM/2024 (A.Y.– 2020-21) ITA No. 4448/MUM/2024 (A.Y. – 2017-18) Assistant Commissioner of v/s. Kalyanee Fortune Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4) बनाम Constructions Room No. 902, Pratishtha 3AA Edena, 3rd Floor 97 M.K. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020, 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AALFK9451E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee by : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Ms. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4444/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…the entries in loose papers and electronic data from the premise of a third party which were not regularly kept during the course of business has no evidentiary value is also affirmed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Sumati Kumar Sharma - [2024] 159 Taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka). I find merit in the contention that on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), entries in loose papers recovered at premise of third party have no corroboration value. The alleged transactions mentioned in the loose papers of a third party were not recorded by the appellant. The alleged transaction was not co…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik vs. Abhayraj Fattehraj Chordiya, C/O Laxmi Oil Mil

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R BhattFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…xus between the seized material and specific assessment years undermines the validity of proceedings making them unsustainable in law. 15. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma reported in (2024) 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year, therefore, where a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment years the same vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. He submitted…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

Lalit Kumar, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1616/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri T Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 132Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1611 to 1616/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2015-16 to 2020-21 Shri Lalit Kumar, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Unit No.1, Vishal Towers, Income Tax, 18/8, 1st Main, S.R Nagar, Central Circle – 1(3), Bengaluru – 560 027. Bangalore. PAN – AEXPK 0250 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri T Srinivasa, CA Revenue by : Shri Balusamy N, JCIT Date of hearing : 16.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is a bu…