How many judgments cite Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT?

103 judgments on BharatTax cite Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT (263 ITR 169), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 131, Section 132(4), Section 132(4A).

Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT

263 ITR 169High Court2003#1062 most cited

What is Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search operation holds evidentiary value, and its mere retraction is insufficient to dislodge this value unless the assessee provides evidence of coercion or inducement during its recording.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT · Section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · evidentiary value · burden of proof coercion · inducement during statement · search assessment · Section 153C · Gauhati High Court

Also reported as

133 Taxmann 432185 CTR 651

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153C Section 131 Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 254 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)abatement of assessment section 153b(1)(a)time barred assessment section 148(1)section 153(1)(a)bona fide mistake statement under section 132(4)retracted statement section 90a section 153b(1)section 153(4)

Judgments citing Greenview Restaurant v. ACIT

Shri Anil Kumar Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani TanejaFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141Section 142(1)

…ns in Pullan Gode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC); ACIT vs Ramesh Chandra R. Patel, 361 ITAT (Adh); Surjeet Singh Chhabra AIT 1997 SC 2560; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs CIT (2001) 248 ITR 782 (All) and Greenview Restaurant vs ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati) and held that the assessee must give justifiable reason and material for the retraction to be acceptable and also give cogent material to show that the admission made in the statement was under pressure or coercion and was not voluntary. 17. When viewed from the ratio of this decision, the retraction of the declaration initially after…

ACIT, Chennai vs. K.I. (International) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 898/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…early indicates that the said retraction is nothing but an afterthought and more so, the entire process is fictitious and fraudulent process for evading taxation. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Greenview Restaurant Vs. ACIT 263 ITR 169 has expressed disapproval on retraction of a statement after a considerable time lag. In the case on hand, the retraction has been made after 7-8 months by way of mostly common affidavits containing various factual inaccuracies furnished by the associates working under the control of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and the statements have been signed by…

ACIT, Chennai vs. K.I. (International) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 897/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68