Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT

96 ITD 113Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#2596 most cited

What is Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT authority for?

A voluntary statement made under Section 132(4) during search proceedings, admitting undisclosed income based on seized material and not retracted promptly, is generally binding. Subsequent retraction without satisfactory explanation is considered an afterthought and may not be accepted.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT · Section 132(4) · Section 131 · Section 132 · search and seizure · statement during search · voluntary admission · undisclosed income · retraction of statement · CBDT circular · block assessment · seized documents

Also reported as

97 TTJ 377

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 132Section 133ASection 115Section 115BBESection 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4)undisclosed incomesection 132previous yearsection 13personbusinessdocument

Judgments citing Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT

M/S ANKUR DEVELOPERS & REALTORS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is rejected

ITA 428/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Ankur Developers & Dy. CIT Central Circle-3(4), Realtors, Mumbai.400054. 303, Golden Bungalow, Juhu Vs. Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400054. PAN NO. AAOFA 7539 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 14/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Ld. Commiss…

SH. SANJAY JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 2765/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Sanjay Jain, Dcit, Cc-01, I-42, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 Vs Pan-Aagpj1372G Assessee Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv. & Shri Dishant Seth, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.09.2025

Section 132Section 132(4)

…surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 4. Further, in the case of Hiralal and Maganlal & Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113(Mum.) Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench has held that - "The CBDT's Circular F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.), dated 10-3- 2003 relied upon by the assessee is an advisory to the field officers that they should concentrate on collections of evidence relating to undisclosed income and not on making attempts to obtain confession. In the instant case, the departme…

ANIL BHUTANI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA

In the result, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue

ITA 430/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI G. S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Anil Bhutani DCIT D-117, Preet Vihar Vs. Central Circle-1 East Delhi Noida Delhi-110092 PAN-AHIPB2545C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. and Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08/02/2024 Date of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Kanpur [hereinafter referred t…

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

… Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs. CIT (2013) 31 taxmann.com 274  Smt. Dayawanti Vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del)  ITO vs. B. D. Dal & Oil Ind. (1992) 40 ITD 1480 (Jaipur)  Kunhambu Vs. CIT (1996) 86 taxman 477 (Kerala)  Hiralal Maganlal & co. V. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 113 (Mumbai) 6. I take note that during survey on 06.01.2012 assessee’s statement was made to the effect that silver stock was to the tune of 200 Kgs and thereafter due to disruption of survey operation as noted (supra), the survey team could not take physical stock of the silver as on that date. However, AO had acknowledged the fact that assessee’s…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y documentary evidence during search proceedings, the subsequent contention of the appellant that the income declared (without including the admitted income) is genuine is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. 7.42 In the matter of Hiralal Maganlal & Co.'s 96 ITD 113 (Mum) case during search proceedings in relation to block assessment, certain sheets indicating the details of stock of the appellant firm were seized The chief accountant of the firm admitted that the said stock represented unaccounted stock and offered the same as additional income. The partner as well as the chief accountant certified that the…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y documentary evidence during search proceedings, the subsequent contention of the appellant that the income declared (without including the admitted income) is genuine is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. 7.42 In the matter of Hiralal Maganlal & Co.'s 96 ITD 113 (Mum) case during search proceedings in relation to block assessment, certain sheets indicating the details of stock of the appellant firm were seized The chief accountant of the firm admitted that the said stock represented unaccounted stock and offered the same as additional income. The partner as well as the chief accountant certified that the…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y documentary evidence during search proceedings, the subsequent contention of the appellant that the income declared (without including the admitted income) is genuine is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. 7.42 In the matter of Hiralal Maganlal & Co.'s 96 ITD 113 (Mum) case during search proceedings in relation to block assessment, certain sheets indicating the details of stock of the appellant firm were seized The chief accountant of the firm admitted that the said stock represented unaccounted stock and offered the same as additional income. The partner as well as the chief accountant certified that the…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y documentary evidence during search proceedings, the subsequent contention of the appellant that the income declared (without including the admitted income) is genuine is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. 7.42 In the matter of Hiralal Maganlal & Co.'s 96 ITD 113 (Mum) case during search proceedings in relation to block assessment, certain sheets indicating the details of stock of the appellant firm were seized The chief accountant of the firm admitted that the said stock represented unaccounted stock and offered the same as additional income. The partner as well as the chief accountant certified that the…

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y documentary evidence during search proceedings, the subsequent contention of the appellant that the income declared (without including the admitted income) is genuine is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. 7.42 In the matter of Hiralal Maganlal & Co.'s 96 ITD 113 (Mum) case during search proceedings in relation to block assessment, certain sheets indicating the details of stock of the appellant firm were seized The chief accountant of the firm admitted that the said stock represented unaccounted stock and offered the same as additional income. The partner as well as the chief accountant certified that the…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD. BEFORE SH. RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.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) Assessmen…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD. BEFORE SH. RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.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) Assessmen…

MAHENDRA H. SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO - WARD- 4 (1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6892/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Bleshri Mahendra H. Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 4(1)(3) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan C/O. The Presscopper Industries M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 175, Kika Street Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aafps0929R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Smita Verma
Section 132(4)Section 133(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…nt, New Delhi AIR 1981 KER 81, wherein it was held that even though the statement is subsequently retracted , the significance of admission in the first place cannot be undermined. 2. TAT Mumbai, D Bench ,in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal & Co. Vs. DCIT [2005] 96 ITD 113 (Mum) has affirmed that a retracted statement may still form the sole basis of addition. 20 Shri Mahendra H. Shah It is my humble request to kindly consider my above submission while deciding the case.” 5. Heard both sides, perused the orders of the Authorities below and the written submissions furnished by both the parties. On a perusal of the…

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ons. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon’ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ons. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon’ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ons. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon’ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ons. Upon perusal of the same, we find that this case law is factually distinguishable since in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon’ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

M/S BINI BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL RANGE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 630/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Bini Builders P. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccb-3447-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 163/2017-18 Dated 17/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Bini Builders P. Ltd. DCIT-CR 7(3) 655, 6th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ PAN/G…

M/S MOONGIPA DEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL RANGE 7(3), MUMBAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 627/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. Dcit-Cr 7(3) 655, 6Th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-1616-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 19/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No.Cit(A)-49/It- 165/2017-18 Dated 05/12/2018 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 274Section 68

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.627/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. DCIT-CR 7(3) 655, 6th Floor 203/204, Raigad Darshan बिाम Opp. Indian Oil Colony Aaykar Bhawan / Vs. J.P.Road, Andheri (W) M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ P…

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

MR. ANIL AGRAWAL (HUF),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4),, MUMBAI

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…in that case incriminating material was found by the department along with confessional statements. 41 M/s Anil Agrawal (HUF) ITA Nos. 5512-5516/Mum/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 to 2014-15 The case law of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal & Co. V/s DCIT 96 ITD 113, as cited by Ld.CIT-DR deals with an assessment framed u/s 158BC which is not the case here. In the case law of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in CIT V/s O.Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71), there was clear admission by the assessee which was duly supported by the documents. The Hon‟ble High Court held that in view of clear admission of the assessee corroborate…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT (96 ITD 113) — Cited in 45 Judgments | BharatTax