(ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT

73 ITD 205Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#2956 most cited

What is (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT authority for?

Additions to income cannot be justified based on loose papers or rough notes found during a search if there is no other corroborative evidence to prove that the amounts represent undisclosed income or actual expenditures not recorded in books of account. The onus is on the revenue to discharge its burden of proof.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT · 73 ITD 205 · onus of proof · dumb documents · search and seizure · undisclosed income · rough notes · corroborative evidence · additions not justified · revenue burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 292CSection 45(4)Section 69ASection 115BBE of Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesonus of proofsection 269tsection 2(43)section 269ssection 271esection 158bbsection 2(31)dumb documentssection 269ssicdssection 159

Judgments citing (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 791/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee's possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee's possession]. (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) – Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 790/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee's possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee's possession]. (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) – Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 789/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee's possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee's possession]. (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) – Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 788/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee's possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee's possession]. (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) – Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 787/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee's possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee's possession]. (ⅲ)Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) – Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 223/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 (Ay: 2016-17 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 292CSection 69B

…Shah 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (2) CIT Vs S. M. Aggrawala 293 ITR 43 (Del HC) (3) Jayantilal Patel Vs ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (4) S.K. Gupta Vs DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Delhi Trib) 532 (5) Atul Kumar Jain Vs DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del Trib) (6) Pooja Bhatt Vs ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum Trib) (7) ITO Vs Shri Rajkumar Birla ITA NO. 934/944/945/Hyd/2012 (Hyd Trib) (8) Amar N Shah (1997) 6 ITD 560 (9) Shed Akshay Pushpavadan Vs DCIT (2010) 130 TTJ 48 (Ahd) (10) ACIT Vs Shri Sharad Chaudhary ITA No. 933/Del/2012 (11) Mohan Foods Ltd. Vs CIT 301 ITR 185. 8. In alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the as…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 113/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…he Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anzal Properties & Industries (2018) 98 taxmann.com 398 (Del), has reiterated similar legal position. Various Benches of Tribunals, including decision of the ITAT., Mumbai, in the case Pooja Bhatt Vs ACIT 73 ITD 205, has considered an identical issue and held that addition based on rough notes not sustainable, unless corroborative evidence suggests that what is recorded in loose sheet is true and correct which suggests unaccounted income earned from business which is not recorded in regular books of account. The sum & substance of ratio laid down by variou…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 112/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…he Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anzal Properties & Industries (2018) 98 taxmann.com 398 (Del), has reiterated similar legal position. Various Benches of Tribunals, including decision of the ITAT., Mumbai, in the case Pooja Bhatt Vs ACIT 73 ITD 205, has considered an identical issue and held that addition based on rough notes not sustainable, unless corroborative evidence suggests that what is recorded in loose sheet is true and correct which suggests unaccounted income earned from business which is not recorded in regular books of account. The sum & substance of ratio laid down by variou…

Nadessan Sivapragasam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central 3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all three

ITA 114/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 05.07.2022

…he Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anzal Properties & Industries (2018) 98 taxmann.com 398 (Del), has reiterated similar legal position. Various Benches of Tribunals, including decision of the ITAT., Mumbai, in the case Pooja Bhatt Vs ACIT 73 ITD 205, has considered an identical issue and held that addition based on rough notes not sustainable, unless corroborative evidence suggests that what is recorded in loose sheet is true and correct which suggests unaccounted income earned from business which is not recorded in regular books of account. The sum & substance of ratio laid down by variou…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tion relies on the following case law: - (i). Dhakeshwati Cotton Mills v. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii). Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii). ACIT v. Shailest Shah [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (iv). Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 4. In any case, in view of SEBI Report, the very basis got away. All such material / statements -/ information have no base / relevance. Most importantly, even SEBI found the information of the Investigation Wing untrue. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Refer part C of the short Note. 5. In any…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” VC JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 753/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12. cuke Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Smt. Saroj Parwal, Vs. Central Circle-3, 376, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur. Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. ADYPP 8357N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 748/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 219/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee’s possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee’s possession]. Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117 to…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 218/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…to discharge its burden of proof that the figures appearing in the loose papers found from assessee’s possession constitute undisclosed income. [In the present case, loose papers were not even seized from assessee’s possession]. Pooja Bhatt Vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum. Trib) Held that where document seized during search was merely a rough noting and not any evidence found that actual expenditures were not recorded in books of account, additions not justified. [In the instant case, similarly no other corroborative evidence was found in search to prove that details/figures mentioned in notings on page 117 to…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the assessment stage but also at the appellate stage. The Assessing Officer had no comment to offer on this, meaning thereby he had no dispute with the legal position as canvass…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the assessment stage but also at the appellate stage. The Assessing Officer had no comment to offer on this, meaning thereby he had no dispute with the legal position as canvass…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…is that deductions under Chapter VIA are also to be taken into account in computing the undisclosed income under Chapter XIVB. A useful reference may be made to the decisions in the cases of Kamkap (India) v. DCIT, 67 ITD 237 (Pat.), and Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT, 73 ITD 205 (Mum.), A. A. Nadiadwala v. DCIT, 75 ITD 394 and B.D.A. Ltd. v. ACIT, 65 ITD 501 (Mum.). One may also refer to the decision of the Special Bench of the Settlement Commission in the case of J. K. Exports, delivered in S.A. No. 21 dated 29-1-1996 wherein the Commission held that the deductions 28 M/s. Amber Enterprises under Chapter VIA would be al…