Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT

96 ITD 113Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#2593 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 366,339 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

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

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 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

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 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

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…

Sri Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. ITO, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…er the survey operation. On the other hand, the assessee had neither reconciled the stock difference nor shown the same in the ITR filed on 30.03.2011 i.e. after a lapse of one year. f) In the case of Hotel Kiran (82 ITD 453) (Pune ITAT) and Hiralal Maganlal (96 ITD 113) (Mumbai ITAT), the Hon'ble Tribunals have held that where during the course of search, the assessee has made some admission, then he debars the authorized officers from making further investigation. Therefore, in their wisdom the Legislature has provided that such statement can be used as evidence and the assessment can be made on that basis. Rel…

Lalit Murarka, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…er the survey operation. On the other hand, the assessee had neither reconciled the stock difference nor shown the same in the ITR filed on 30.03.2011 i.e. after a lapse of one year. f) In the case of Hotel Kiran (82 ITD 453) (Pune ITAT) and Hiralal Maganlal (96 ITD 113) (Mumbai ITAT), the Hon'ble Tribunals have held that where during the course of search, the assessee has made some admission, then he debars the authorized officers from making further investigation. Therefore, in their wisdom the Legislature has provided that such statement can be used as evidence and the assessment can be made on that basis. Rel…

M/S Moongipa Development and Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range -7(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 625/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 625 & 626/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Moongipa Development बिधम/ Dcit Central Range-7(3) Room No.655, 6Th Floor & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. 203/204 Raigad Darshan, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Jp Churchgate, Mumbai- Road, Andheri West, 400020. Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm1616E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/12/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009- 10 & 2010-11. Ita. No.625/M/2019 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.12.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. Ita Nos. 625 & 626/M/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri A. H. Ansari (Sr. AR)
Section 127Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

…ities purchased the shares of the assessee at premium of Rs.90/-per share but they exited at face value of Rs.10/- per share. Further, the retraction would not have any relevance in the light of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal and Co V/s DCIT (97 TTJ 377). The case laws being relied upon by the assessee were held to be distinguishable rather reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt Ltd. 342 ITR 169 to confirm the additions. Finally, the additions were confirmed by observing as under: - 7.8 The Learned Counsel also alleged that the AO made the…

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 631/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal Punmiya- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR
Section 68

…ities purchased the shares of the assessee at premium of Rs.90/-per share but they exited at face value of Rs.10/- per share. Further, the retraction would not have any relevance in the light of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in Hiralal Maganlal and Co V/s DCIT (97 TTJ 377). The case laws being relied upon by the assessee were held to be distinguishable rather reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt Ltd. 342 ITR 169 to confirm the additions. Finally, the additions were confirmed by observing as under: - 7.8 The Learned Counsel also alleged that the AO made the…

Sajjan Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1458/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

…and Choksi Vs ACIT (ITAT, Ahd) 61 ITO 55 b. Param anand Builders Vs ITO ( ITAT, Mum) 59 ITO 29 C. Work of Art Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT ( ITAT, Jp ) 65 ITO 40 d. Amritlal Bhagwandas Soni Vs DCIT ( ITAT, Ahd) 59 TTJ 418 e. Hiralal Maganlal & Co. Vs DCIIT (ITAT, Mum) 96 ITD 113 f. Airport Authority of India Vs CBEC (Del) 207 CTR 196 g. Ravindra D Trivedi Vs CIT (Raj) 215 CTR 313 5. In the case at hand, I find that the appellant has unable to bring on record even an iota of evidence that. the statement was improperly procured from him, or that any coercion or duress was used against him. 6. In my considered view the d…

ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 2257/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The ld. CIT, DR also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 Taxmann.com 274 (Del) (ii) Hiralal and Maganlal & Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum) (iii) Dewan Bahadur Seth Gopal Das Mohta vs. UOI 26 ITR 722 (SC) (iv) Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771; (v) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) (vi) M/s Pebble Investment & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 67 (viii) PCIT vs. Avinash Ku…

Versatile Polytech P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, ITA No.2257/Del/2018 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the

ITA 1088/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Superior House, Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q Assessment Year: 2014-15 Versatile Polytech P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Superior House, New Delhi. Bangali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaccv1244Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : .03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…e, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The ld. CIT, DR also relied on the following decisions:- (i) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 Taxmann.com 274 (Del) (ii) Hiralal and Maganlal & Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum) (iii) Dewan Bahadur Seth Gopal Das Mohta vs. UOI 26 ITR 722 (SC) (iv) Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771; (v) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 308 (Del) (vi) M/s Pebble Investment & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 67 (viii) PCIT vs. Avinash Ku…

Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd., Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1400/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Ms. Shabana Parveen
Section 132Section 153CSection 234BSection 69C

…s unexplained expenditure. 4. In the First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. While coming to the above conclusion, the CIT(A) relied on the decision of Mumbai in the case of Hiralal Maganlal & Co Vs. DCIT reported in 96 ITD 113 (Mum)/(2005) 97 TTJ (Mum) 377. 5. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal with the grounds mentioned above. 6. Before us, on the said addition, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is one of the aggregators of land for Jai Corp. Ltd. M/s.Jai Corp. Ltd. has a project of establishing a SEZ. D…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Liladhar Majethia, Mumbai

ITA 6140/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodacit, Central Circle-2 Shri Liladhar Majethia R. No. 904, Prathishta 7, 2Nd Floor, Pathaibapa Bhavan, Marine Lines, Niwas, N.S. Road, Vs. Mumbai- 20. Mulund (West), Mumbai- 400 080 Pan – Abypt7683B

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Mrs. Ritika Agarwal, A.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 254(2)

…2012 AY 2009-10 ACIT, CC-2 Vs. Shri Liladhar Majethia was placed by the ld D.R on certain judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Sanjeev Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (2015) 56 Taxman.com 214 (All); and (ii) Heeralal Maganlala & Co. Vs. DCIT (2005) 97 TTJ 377 (Mum). The ld. D.R taking support of the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT-II Vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 525 of 2014; dated 11.03.2015) (Del), therein averred that even if the A.O had failed to conduct a proper scrutiny of the impounded material to support the disclosure of Rs. 50 lac whic…

Ajay Malshi Dedhia, Mumbai vs. JCIT 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.641/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri. Nitin M. Furia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya, DR
Section 143Section 68

…raction made after several months does not satisfy the requirement of law . The learned CIT(A) relied upon following case laws to come to above conclusions :- a) ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (2011) 337 ITR 238(Chhatisgarh) b) Hiralal Maganlal & Co. v. DCIT(2005) 96 ITD 113(Mum.) c) ITO v. Devji Premji Pujara & Sons. (2013) 60 SOT 6 (Mum-trib.) Thus, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee was not able to prove genuineness of the loan transactions which were all accommodation entries. The assessee failed to produce these loan creditors were the observations of the learned CIT(A). This led to the dismissal of…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Ast CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4328/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…Singh Chhabra v. UoI, order dated 25.10.1996 (SC), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., order dated 14.06.1993 (Calcutta High Court), CIT v. M/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 525/2014) (Delhi High Court) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. (2005) 96 ITD 113 (Mum). The Ld. DR also relies on the decision in CIT v. D.K. Garg (2017) 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi), ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (2010) 191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. 9.1 We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld.…

Vaibhav Deepak Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…Singh Chhabra v. UoI, order dated 25.10.1996 (SC), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., order dated 14.06.1993 (Calcutta High Court), CIT v. M/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 525/2014) (Delhi High Court) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. (2005) 96 ITD 113 (Mum). The Ld. DR also relies on the decision in CIT v. D.K. Garg (2017) 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi), ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (2010) 191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. 9.1 We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld.…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4408/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…Singh Chhabra v. UoI, order dated 25.10.1996 (SC), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., order dated 14.06.1993 (Calcutta High Court), CIT v. M/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 525/2014) (Delhi High Court) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. (2005) 96 ITD 113 (Mum). The Ld. DR also relies on the decision in CIT v. D.K. Garg (2017) 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi), ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (2010) 191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. 9.1 We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld.…

DCIT Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Vaibhav D Shah, Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4407/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 1Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vaibhav Deepak Shah Assistant Commissioner Of 5/7, V.P. Road, Income Tax, Central Circle-13 Vs. Dadarkar House, 1St New Cgo Building, Prathistha Floor, Flat No. 9-10, Bhavan. M.K. Road Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400020 Pan No. Bbgps2674L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay R. Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 69C

…Singh Chhabra v. UoI, order dated 25.10.1996 (SC), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Ltd., order dated 14.06.1993 (Calcutta High Court), CIT v. M/s Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 525/2014) (Delhi High Court) and Hiralal Maganlal & Co. (2005) 96 ITD 113 (Mum). The Ld. DR also relies on the decision in CIT v. D.K. Garg (2017) 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi), ACIT v. Hukum Chand Jain (2010) 191 Taxman 319 (Chhattisgarh). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. 9.1 We begin with the decisions relied on by the Ld.…

Sri. Eldhose K. Varghese, Muvattupuzha vs. Thedcit, Ernakulam

In the result, appeals for assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and 2010-11 are allowed while the appeals of the assessee for assessment year 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are partly allowed

ITA 261/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234A

…he statement was retracted only before the CIT(A) by filing an affidavit dated 09/03/2016 while the search had taken place on 02/11/2011. 9.1 It is settled law in view of the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Hiralal Maganlal & Co. vs. DCIT [2005] 96 ITD 113 that where the assessee had made voluntary declaration on oath under section 132(4) and induced the Departmental Authorities to act upon the same at the time of search and its acceptance by the Departmental Authorities but Departmental Authorities did not proceed further with the investigation in order to locate unaccounted income, the assessee ca…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sunilkumar O Kochhar, Mumbai

ITA 5360/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…decisions stating that the statement given by the assessee at the time of survey / search action is binding on him and any retraction made by him has no meaning at all. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal and Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum); Ramesh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by th…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Renu S. Kochar, Mumbai

ITA 5261/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Smt. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramaniam
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…decisions stating that the statement given by the assessee at the time of survey / search action is binding on him and any retraction made by him has no meaning at all. In this regard he relied on the decision in the case of Hiralal Magan Lal and Co. vs. DCIT 96 ITD 113 (Mum); Ramesh Chandra and Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375(Bom), Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT 82 ITD 453 Pune; Video Master vs. JCIT 83 ITD 102 (Bom); Ramesh T. Salve vs. ACIT 75 ITD 75 (Mum); Smt. Basanti Sethi vs. ACIT ; Ram Jas Nawal vs. CIT 183 CTR (Raj) 144; Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT 248 ITR 782 (All). 4. The ld. CIT(A) noted the following submission made by th…