Delhi in Shyam Sunder Jindal v. ACIT on 10.4

89 ITR 65Supreme Court of India1973#5959 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292CSection 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39section 5(2)substantive assessmentnon application of mindbusiness connectionlive linksection 149(1)kelvinatorchildassessee in default

Judgments citing Delhi in Shyam Sunder Jindal v. ACIT on 10.4

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

…,00,000, from Shri Wardhman Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd. The assessee submitted that the no addition can be made on the basis of photocopy of sale agreement in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha v/s CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the assessee that once the property is acquired through a registered sale deed, it is a conclusive proof for the sale mentioned in the sale deed which is final unless contrary is proved. We also find that the unsigned photocopy of sale agreement found at the premises of third party which the Asses…

DCIT CC 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. BRINDESH GOVERDHANDAS AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 258/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…597 has held that onus is on the department to prove that the assessee has understated the value of the property and has paid more than what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha vs. CIT(89 ITR 65) has held that photo copies have little evidentiary value. Therefore, photocopies of any document cannot by itself be considered as evidence for purpose of making addition in assessment proceedings. The AO is required to bring further evidence on record to show that the sale agreement was actually acted upon by the parties. This is because of the f…

SHRIMATI AMARJIT KAUR W/O BUGAR SINGH,MANSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MANSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)Section 49

…vidence unless these are confirmed on the basis of verification of original documents. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by a bench of three judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Moosa S. Madha & Azam S. Madha Vs. CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) according to which photocopies have very little evidentiary value. This issue was also examined by the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Simranpal Singh Gill Vs. DCIT, Circle-VI, Ludhiana in ITA No.l 19/Chandi/2010 for A/Y 2008-09. In this order dated 29th April, 2011, the Hon’ble ITAT observed as under:- “In the absence of origin…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…t the photocopy of the document shown relates to him. This burden has not been A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. discharged by the AO. It is well settled that mere suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. Moosa S Madha and Azam CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) 3. Also Refer: But if a foreign document is otherwise relevant and proved according to law, its photocopy can be admitted in evidence provided such copy is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Diplomatic an Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 [Vimal Chandra Gulecha 134 ITR 119 (Raj) at 130]. 4. Factual inaccuracy in as…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…t the photocopy of the document shown relates to him. This burden has not been A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. discharged by the AO. It is well settled that mere suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. Moosa S Madha and Azam CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) 3. Also Refer: But if a foreign document is otherwise relevant and proved according to law, its photocopy can be admitted in evidence provided such copy is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Diplomatic an Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 [Vimal Chandra Gulecha 134 ITR 119 (Raj) at 130]. 4. Factual inaccuracy in as…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…t the photocopy of the document shown relates to him. This burden has not been A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. discharged by the AO. It is well settled that mere suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. Moosa S Madha and Azam CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) 3. Also Refer: But if a foreign document is otherwise relevant and proved according to law, its photocopy can be admitted in evidence provided such copy is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Diplomatic an Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 [Vimal Chandra Gulecha 134 ITR 119 (Raj) at 130]. 4. Factual inaccuracy in as…

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

…t the photocopy of the document shown relates to him. This burden has not been A.Y. 06-07& 07-08 Manish Vijay Mehta & Urvi Manish Mehta. discharged by the AO. It is well settled that mere suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. Moosa S Madha and Azam CIT, 89 ITR 65 (SC) 3. Also Refer: But if a foreign document is otherwise relevant and proved according to law, its photocopy can be admitted in evidence provided such copy is duly authenticated in the manner prescribed by the Diplomatic an Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 [Vimal Chandra Gulecha 134 ITR 119 (Raj) at 130]. 4. Factual inaccuracy in as…

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 628/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

…that a photocopy of a document in the absence of the original document has no evidentiary value had been arrived at in various judicial pronouncements as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R before us, viz. (i). Moosa M. Madha & Azam S. Madha Vs. CIT (1973) 89 ITR 65 (SC); (ii). Ram Saroop Saini, HUF Vs. ACIT (2007) 26 CCH 246 (Delhi)(Trib); (iii). Arati Bhargava (Ms.) Vs. Shri. 15 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kavi Ram Bhargava, order dated 10.05.1999, AIR 1999 Delhi 280; (iv). ACIT Vs. Kulwinder Singh, ITA No. 930, 931 of 2009; (v). DCIT…

SMT. GURJEET KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV (2),, JALANDHAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 627/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69Section 91

…that a photocopy of a document in the absence of the original document has no evidentiary value had been arrived at in various judicial pronouncements as had been relied upon by the ld. A.R before us, viz. (i). Moosa M. Madha & Azam S. Madha Vs. CIT (1973) 89 ITR 65 (SC); (ii). Ram Saroop Saini, HUF Vs. ACIT (2007) 26 CCH 246 (Delhi)(Trib); (iii). Arati Bhargava (Ms.) Vs. Shri. 15 Smt. Gurjeet Kaur Vs. ITO-Ward 3(4), Jalandhar ITA No. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 – A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 Kavi Ram Bhargava, order dated 10.05.1999, AIR 1999 Delhi 280; (iv). ACIT Vs. Kulwinder Singh, ITA No. 930, 931 of 2009; (v). DCIT…

JAGMOHAN KAUR BAJWA LEGAL HEIR OF LT.JASKIRAN SINGH BAJWA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-3(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…h the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The photocopy is not an admissible evidence in the court of law. Reference in this regard be made to judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moosa S.Madha & Azam S.Madha Vs.CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC) according to which photocopies have very little evidentiary value. This issue was also examined by the jurisdictional ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Simranpal Singh Gill Vs. DCIT, Circle-VI, Ludhiana in ITA No.119/Chd/2010 for AY 2008-09 dated 29th April 2011 wherein it is held that it is well settled principle of law of evidence that co…

M/S WEMBLEY'S COOP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…d in law as these have been initiated on the basis of fake/forged receipts and both parties have denied having received any such payments. a) The addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of fake receipts and no original has ever been confronted. b) In 89 ITR 65 (SC) in the case of M/s Moosa S Midha & Azam S Masdha Vs CIT 1973 it was held that photocopies have very litter evidentiary value. (Copy of judgement stands already filed). c) This judgement was further followed by various courts. In the case of CIT Vs Moorti Devi on 20.9.2010 (para 7) Copy stands filed in reply having been filed in appeal for A.Y…

M/S WEMBLEY'S COOP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD.,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…d in law as these have been initiated on the basis of fake/forged receipts and both parties have denied having received any such payments. a) The addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of fake receipts and no original has ever been confronted. b) In 89 ITR 65 (SC) in the case of M/s Moosa S Midha & Azam S Masdha Vs CIT 1973 it was held that photocopies have very litter evidentiary value. (Copy of judgement stands already filed). c) This judgement was further followed by various courts. In the case of CIT Vs Moorti Devi on 20.9.2010 (para 7) Copy stands filed in reply having been filed in appeal for A.Y…

SH. SATKAR SINGH BAWA,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 664/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…d in law as these have been initiated on the basis of fake/forged receipts and both parties have denied having received any such payments. a) The addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of fake receipts and no original has ever been confronted. b) In 89 ITR 65 (SC) in the case of M/s Moosa S Midha & Azam S Masdha Vs CIT 1973 it was held that photocopies have very litter evidentiary value. (Copy of judgement stands already filed). c) This judgement was further followed by various courts. In the case of CIT Vs Moorti Devi on 20.9.2010 (para 7) Copy stands filed in reply having been filed in appeal for A.Y…

SH. SATKAR SINGH BAWA,MOHALI vs. ITO, W-6(4), MOHALI

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 663/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jun 2021AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R.R. Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 148

…d in law as these have been initiated on the basis of fake/forged receipts and both parties have denied having received any such payments. a) The addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of fake receipts and no original has ever been confronted. b) In 89 ITR 65 (SC) in the case of M/s Moosa S Midha & Azam S Masdha Vs CIT 1973 it was held that photocopies have very litter evidentiary value. (Copy of judgement stands already filed). c) This judgement was further followed by various courts. In the case of CIT Vs Moorti Devi on 20.9.2010 (para 7) Copy stands filed in reply having been filed in appeal for A.Y…

KARUTURI VIJAYA BHARATHI, ,GUNTUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Karuturi Vijaya Bharathi, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), D.No. 1-2-8, Presidency Guntur. Apartment, 1St Floor, 1St Line, Jkc Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Blupk 0068 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

…held that onus is on the department to prove that the assessee has understated the value of the property and has paid more than what is mentioned in the registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha vs. CIT ( 89 ITR 65) has held that photocopies have little evidentiary value. Therefore, photocopies of any document cannot by itself be considered as evidence for purpose of making addition in assessment proceedings. The AO is required to bring further evidence on record to show that the sale agreement was actually acted upon by the parties. This is because of the fa…

BALRAJ GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: And Shri Priyansh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1948/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Balraj Gupta, The ACIT, E-108, Greater Kailash Part-II, New Delhi-048. Circle-61(1), PAN AAHPG9233G vs C/o. M/s. RRA Tax India, New Delhi. D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049. (Respondent) Shri Somil Agarwal, And Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates For Assessee : And Shri Priyansh Jain, C.A. For Revenue : Shri P.V. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH…

SHRI KRISHAN GOPAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3249/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &For Respondent: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH - ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 Shri Krishan Gopal ITO Vs. Prop. M/s. Kay Pee Lock Ward-39(1) Industries New Delhi. C/o M/s. RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, South Extension Part-1, New Delhi – 110 049 PAN ADIPG062IN (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Department by: Ms.Bedobani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 16 /05/2017 Per BHAVNESH SAINI, Judicial Member ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) XX…

SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5448/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 5448/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Shyam Sunder Jindal, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 12A, Green Avenue, Sector-D, Tax, Central Circle-30, Pocket-3, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi New Delhi-110070 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj0184N Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rohit Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-30, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(viii)Section 4

…on him and made the arbitrary addition by relying on the photocopies in the absence of original. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashok Dhulichand Vs Madahavlal Dube & Another (1975) AIR 1748 (SC) " Moosa S. Madha and Azam S. Madha Vs CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC) " Smt. J. Yashoda Vs Smt. K. Shobha Rani, Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 2007 (SC) 36 Shyam Sunder Jindal " Union of India Vs Shantilal Motilal Mehta (2006) 4 BomCR 119 (Bom.) " Ram Saroop Saini (HUF) Vs ACIT 15 SOT 470 (Del. Trib.) 16. It was contended that the onus was on the department to establish that the bank account was in the name of the as…

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…g to residence to all individuals - foreigners as well as Indians including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis and other irrespective of the personal law governing them. CIT v Dhote (B.K.) (1967) 66 ITR 457 (SC) Also see Moosa S. Madht & Azam S. Madha v. CIT 89 ITR 65 (SC). Onus to prove stay in India with department: The onus of proving that the assessee was in India during the four years preceding the previous year for a period or periods in the aggregate of not less than 365 days, and was in India for at least 60 days during the previous year, lies on the department. Pradip J Mehta Vs CIT (2008) 300 ITR 231(S…

CIT vs. MOORTI DEVI

Accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to

ITA/979/2010HC Delhi20 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

Section 132Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)

…ition, which was entirely uncalled for. The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition, even though the absence of original document have been admitted in the impugned order. 12. In “Moosa S. Madha And Azam S. Nadga v. CIT, West Bengal”, 89 ITR 65 (SC), it has been held that photo copies of a document have very little evidentiary value. 13. In “Smt. J. Yashoda v. Smt. K. Shoba Rani”, 2007-TIOL- 119-SC-MISC (copy placed on record), it has been held that photo copies cannot be received as secondary evidence; that secondary evidence is admissible only in the absence of primary evidence;…