Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court)

248 ITR 782High Court2001#1738 most cited

What is Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court) authority for?

An admission of additional income made in a statement under Section 132(4) during a search operation is an important piece of evidence. If such a statement is later retracted or claimed to be made under duress, the burden of proof lies with the assessee to substantiate that the admission was incorrect or involuntary, failing which it can form a valid basis for assessment.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT · Section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · admission of income · burden of proof assessee · duress claim · evidentiary value · search assessment · unexplained income

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69CSection 133(6)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 114retraction of statementsection 158bcsection 271aabsection 158bbdumb documentson-moneypanchnamasection 158bsurvey under section 133a

Judgments citing Dr. 8C Gupta v. CIT (Allahabad High Court)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad vs. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1910/HYD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1909/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1908/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1907/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1906/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…& Haryana High court held that the statement recorded during the Survey is valid. The retraction of additional income on the ground that the statement was the result of duress was not accepted. Similar view was taken in the case of Dr.S.C.Gupta Vs. CIT(2001) 248 ITR 782, where the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the additions made on the basis of statement given by the assessee during the survey was an extremely important piece of evidence. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could form the basis of addition. Page 13 of 46 M/s. Varsha Viswanath Properties Private Limited batch I…

Shambhu Prasad Rastogi, Mirzapur vs. ITO, Range 3(4), Mirzapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.66/Alld/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बनधम/ Shambhu Prasad Rastogi Ito, Range-3(4) Prop. M/S. Rastogi Sarraf, Aayakar Bhawan, Mahant Vs. Dhundhi Katara, Mirzapur- Shivala, Mirzapur- 231001. 231307. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpr8527Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Nita Goyal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-03 Dated 29.03.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,84,080/- On Account Of Alleged Excess Stock-In-Trade On The Date Of Survey (I.E. On 06.01.2012).

For Appellant: Ms. Nita GoyalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 133A

…ring survey voluntarily and he being the owner of jewellery shop is the best person to know the stock of silver as on that date (ie. 06.01.2012) and cited inter-alia the decision of the jurisdictional Hon’ble High Court in the case of Dr. S. C. Gupta Vs. CIT [248 ITR 782 (All)] and Sanjeev Agrawal Vs. ITSC [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 214 (All)]. Further, 5 A.Y. 2012-13 Shambhu Prasad Rastogi according to Ld. DR, due to disruption of survey operation by local traders/mob, the survey team could not complete the physical inventory of stock. And therefore, the physical non-verification of the stock could not be used agai…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…ts in the case of CIT v Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Pun). & Har), Bachittar Singh v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj & Har), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16-4-2014 notarized on 19-4-2014, we find that all th…

Mr. Anil Kantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-51, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 227/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…ts in the case of CIT v Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Pun). & Har), Bachittar Singh v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj & Har), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidavits dated 16-4-2014 notarized on 19-4-2014, we find that all th…

DCIT, Allahabad vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 216/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…t cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribunal rightly followed the observations of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta[2001] 248 ITR 782 and of this court in Surinder Kumar [2006] 282 ITR 78 (P&H). Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse or illegal.” 7.6.4. Hiralal Maganlal& Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, SR- 52, [2005] 96ITD113 (ITAT-MUM.) “Whether further since retraction was not su…

M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad vs. Acct, Allahabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue ITA No

ITA 199/ALLD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.199/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Acit-Circle-1, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. (Respondent) [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-Circle-1, Vs. M/S Mahesh Chandra Allahabad. Vishnu Chandra Sarraf, 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.34/Alld/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 216/Alld/2016) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Mahesh Chandra Vishnu Vs. Dcit-Circle-3, Chandra Sarraf, Allahabad. 37/164, Meerganj, Chowk Allahabad. [Pan:-[Aaqfm2701G] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By None. Respondent By Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250(6)

…t cannot be held to be irrelevant material so as to be ruled out of consideration in totality of facts, particularly in the absence of regular books of account. The Tribunal rightly followed the observations of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. S.C. Gupta[2001] 248 ITR 782 and of this court in Surinder Kumar [2006] 282 ITR 78 (P&H). Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be held to be perverse or illegal.” 7.6.4. Hiralal Maganlal& Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, SR- 52, [2005] 96ITD113 (ITAT-MUM.) “Whether further since retraction was not su…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7090/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-6(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7089/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

R. Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-61(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7088/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6779/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT CC -5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. R. Kantilal & Company, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6778/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Parag Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6773/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT, CC - 5(1), Mumbai vs. Parag Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6772/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT, CC- 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6761/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…

DCIT, CC 5 (1), Mumbai vs. Pratik Suresh Kothari, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6759/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.7088 To 7090/Mum/2018 (A.Ys. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2012-13) M/S R. Kantilal & Co. Vs. Dcit, Cc-6(1) Tower-F(W),Office No. Income Tax Office, 7030, Bharat Diamond 19Th Floor, Air India Bourse, Block, Bandra Building, Nariman Point, Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 021 Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aacfr5384C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Dharm Veer Singh &
Section 153ASection 68

…view is that a person making a statement is well versed with his own affairs/ business, than any other person. 7.14. On the issue of retraction of the statement made u/s 132(4), reliance is placed on the judgment of Dr. 8C Gupta Vs CIT (Allahabad High Court) 248 ITR 782, wherein it was held as under: “As held by the Supreme Court in Pillangode Rubber Prochice Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 1972 CTR (SC) 253, an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence though it is not conclusive. Therefore, a statement made voluntarily by the assessee could from the basis of assessment. The mere fact that the assessee…