Income-Tax Officer v. Balram Jakhar

8 SOT 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#21406 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153CSection 69ASection 69CSection 133ASection 132Section 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133abusiness connectiondumb documentssection 132(4a)loose papersdocuments seizedunexplained expendituresection 132(4)section 69csection 133section 133aincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Income-Tax Officer v. Balram Jakhar

Kolsa Khadan Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sillewada Project, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documents and loose papers as far as the case of the appellant is considered. Further, no circumstant…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documents and loose papers as far as the case of the appellant is considered. Further, no circumstant…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documents and loose papers as far as the case of the appellant is considered. Further, no circumstant…

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

…he assessee was taking money for fixing cricket matches, the reports of the CBI and Madhavan Commission on match fixing could not be relied upon for making additions as they were not evidence found during the search. 14. In the case of ITO Vs. Balram Jakhar, 8 SOT 1 (Amritsar), the reopening of the assessment on the basis of the CBI report was examined and the Tribunal has held that merely on the basis of the CBI report, the reopening is not possible, as in the criminal proceedings, the assessee was acquitted by the court. The facts of that case was that assessee filed his return upon which assessment was made a…

Income-Tax Officer v. Balram Jakhar (8 SOT 1) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax