Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO

128 TTJ 36Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2582 most cited

What is Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO authority for?

An addition to income, particularly for alleged 'on-money' transactions, cannot be sustained solely based on third-party notings or statements found during a search. Such additions require corroborating evidence, such as the assessee's handwriting, signatures, or other incriminating material directly belonging to the assessee.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO · Section 132 search assessment · third party notings · third party statements · on-money addition · corroborating evidence · assessee handwriting signature · seized material · unexplained expenditure Section 69C · deletion of addition

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 69CSection 132(4)Section 147Section 132(4A)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionprincipal chief commissioner of income-taxsection 23(1)(a)peak credit theorysection 23(1)third party informationfaceless assessment schemeannual letting valuesection 245d(4)section 131(1)section 65bon-money

Judgments citing Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. PATNA IRON PVT. LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…d notings. Inspite of this, the ITA Nos. 373, 332& 237/PAT/2025 Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd.& Sushil Kumar Kanodia; A.Ys. 2020-21& 2017-18 addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. iii) JawaharbhalAtmaramHathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd) (UO)] In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as under (Head Note) "Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that…

SUSHIL KUMAR KANODIA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…d notings. Inspite of this, the ITA Nos. 373, 332& 237/PAT/2025 Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd.& Sushil Kumar Kanodia; A.Ys. 2020-21& 2017-18 addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed. iii) JawaharbhalAtmaramHathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd) (UO)] In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal deleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as under (Head Note) "Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that…

BIREN MANNA,MUMBAI vs. ITO -WARD-23(1)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6373/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant ()\Nand\Nshri Rahul Chaudhary ()\N\Nita No. 6373/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2022-23\N\Nshri Biren Manna,\N5/7, Vithoba Lane, 4Th Floor,\Nroom No. 40, Vithalwadi,\Nkalbadevi,\Nmumbai-400 002.\Npan No. Aadpm 0809 N\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\Nvs.\Nito Ward 23 Ward 23(1)(6),\Npirmal Chamber,\Nmumbai-400012.\Nrespondent\Nmr. Paras B. Jain\Nmr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N:\N:\N01/12/2025\N22/12/2025\N\Norder\Nper Om Prakash Kant, Am\N\Nthis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated\N03.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax\N(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Ld.\Ncit(A)'] For Assessment Year 2022-23, Raising Following Grounds:\N\N1. Void Order\N1.

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

…he assessee. Further, the\ncheque payment was also reflected in the seized noting. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of noting in respect of cash\ntransaction was not confirmed. Reliance was also placed on\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)],\nwherein it was held that mere third-party notings or statements,\nwithout any supporting evidence such as handwriting, signatures,\nor other incriminating material belonging to the assessee, could not\njustify an addition on account of alleged on-money. It was\nspecifically pointed out that none of the seized documents bore the\nhandwriti…

DCIT-CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

ITA 2759/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2358/Mum/2025-AY 2018-19 ITA No. 2359/Mum/2025-AY 2022-23 Rucha Consultancy LLP, Vs. ACIT, Circle –6(1), 103 / 104, 1st Floor, Room No. 1905, Ramsukh House, Shivaji 19th Floor, Air India Nagar, Near Sancheti Building, Nariman Hospital, Pune-411005. Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN/GIR No. AARFR5880Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 2488/Mum/2025-AY 2016-17 ITA No. 2487/Mum/2025-AY 2017-18 ITA No. 2721/Mum/2025-AY 2018-19 ITA No. 2759/Mum/2025-AY 2019-20 ITA No. 27…

DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RAJARAMPURI MOTIPURI GOSAVI, THANE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Rajarampuri Motipuri Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Gosavi 6(1) 1002 Steppes Vasant Lawns, Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Pokharan Road No. 2, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Eastern Express Highway, Kurla Complex, Bandra Subhash Nagar, Thane – 400 (East), Mumbai – 400 051, 601, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpg2425M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…er, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT. In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.), addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of a third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal deleted the addition by observing that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that in fact the assessee had paid 'on money' to the developers. No document contai…

ACIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. VINAYKUMAR SUDHAKAR DESHPANDE, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…er, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed by the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT. In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.), addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of a third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon’ble Ahmedabad Tribunal deleted the addition by observing that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that in fact the assessee had paid ‘on money’ to the developers. No document contai…

HEMANT NARESH AGARWAL,SURAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR. 4, SURAT

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…IT vs. Royal Marwar Tobecco (P) Ltd (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahd. Trib.); (v) CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC); (vi) PCIT vs. Punchmukhi Managements Services (P) Ltd (2023) 456 ITR 358 (SC); (vii) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010) 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.); (viii) Anil Jaggi vs. ACIT Circle 30 (1)-Mumbai; (ix) CIT Central vs. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) and (x) ITO vs. Bharat A. Mehta (2015) 60 taxmann.com 31 (Guj.). 7.2 In view of the above decisions, the Ld. AR submitted that rates of all shops at the time of actual sales cannot be same as it was rough estimate and no add…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 820/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…r has not been denied by the assessee.\nFurther, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was\nnot confirmed.\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)]\nIn this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of\nthird party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal\ndeleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as\nunder (Head Note) \"Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the\nRevenue to show…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 819/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…r has not been denied by the assessee.\nFurther, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was\nnot confirmed.\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)]\nIn this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of\nthird party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal\ndeleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as\nunder (Head Note) \"Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the\nRevenue to show…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 818/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…r has not been denied by the assessee.\nFurther, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was\nnot confirmed.\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)]\nIn this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of\nthird party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal\ndeleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as\nunder (Head Note) \"Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the\nRevenue to show…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 817/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…r has not been denied by the assessee.\nFurther, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was\nnot confirmed.\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)]\nIn this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of\nthird party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal\ndeleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as\nunder (Head Note) \"Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the\nRevenue to show…

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 816/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147

…r has not been denied by the assessee.\nFurther, the cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of\nthis, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was\nnot confirmed.\nJawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [128 TTJ 36 (Ahd)(UO)]\nIn this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of\nthird party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Tribunal\ndeleted the addition. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble Tribunal is as\nunder (Head Note) \"Held that no evidence could be brought on record by the\nRevenue to show…

SHAILESH CHHAGANLAL HARIA SHAH,BHIWANDI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result,\nground no

ITA 1177/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

…However, at the time of making submission, the Id. AR on the issue of not\nallowing cross examination relied upon the following decision:\n❖ Mr. Hoshang Jamshed Mohta vs ITO (ITA No. No. 36/Mum/2023) dated\n31.03.2023,\n❖ Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs ITO (128 TTJ 36).,\nAmitabh Bansal vs ITO (175 ITD 401),\nACIT vs Sharad Nagnath Rajbhoj (ITA No. 5661/Mum/2024) dated 24.01.2025.\n7. On the issue of validity of reopening mainly relied on the decision of Delhi\nHigh Court in PCIT vs N.C. Cables Ltd. (391 ITR 11) and the decision of the\nHon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Saraswat Co-operative Bank vs\nACI…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5706/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 65BSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s. Rucha Consultancy LLP, DCIT, Central 103-104, 1st Floor, Circle-6(1), Ramsukh House, 4th Floor, 4996/Mum/2024 2021-22 Shivaji Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Near Sancheti BKC, Hospital, Mumbai-400051. Pune-411005. PAN : AARFR5880Q M/s. Rucha Consultancy LLP, ACIT, Central 103-104, 1st Floor, Circle-6(1), Ramsukh House, 5706/Mum/2024 2021-22 4th Floor, Shivaji Nagar, BKC, Near Sancheti Mumbai-400051. Hospital, Pune-411005. PAN : AARF…

RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 6(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4996/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 65BSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent M/s. Rucha Consultancy LLP, DCIT, Central 103-104, 1st Floor, Circle-6(1), Ramsukh House, 4th Floor, 4996/Mum/2024 2021-22 Shivaji Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Near Sancheti BKC, Hospital, Mumbai-400051. Pune-411005. PAN : AARFR5880Q M/s. Rucha Consultancy LLP, ACIT, Central 103-104, 1st Floor, Circle-6(1), Ramsukh House, 5706/Mum/2024 2021-22 4th Floor, Shivaji Nagar, BKC, Near Sancheti Mumbai-400051. Hospital, Pune-411005. PAN : AARF…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA SAWALERAM RAHANE , SANGAMNER, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5668/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…e cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT. 7.3.2 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.), addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of a third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal deleted the addition by observing that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that in fact the assessee had paid 'on money' to the developers. No document contai…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RANJIT RAJARAM HANDE, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5621/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…e cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT. 7.3.2 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.), addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of a third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal deleted the addition by observing that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that in fact the assessee had paid 'on money' to the developers. No document contai…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAMNAGAR vs. NILESH BIPINCHANDRA MEHTA, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 750 /Rjt/ 2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Jamnagar Vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta Prop. Of B. J. Industries Tej Prakash Society, P. N. Marg Jamnagar 361001, Gujarat India स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpm8295H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 21.08.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act"). 1

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 750/RJT/2024 The ITO Jamnagar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 750 /RJT/ 2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The ITO, Jamnagar Vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta Prop. Of B. J. Industries Tej Prakash Society, P. N. Marg Jamnagar 361001, Gujarat India स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQPM8295H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की ता…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GOPU RAJAGOPAL, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…gainfully refer to the decision of We also gainfully refer to the decision of coordinate bench of this coordinate bench of this Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of , Ahmedabad in the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO (128 TTJ 36). . In this case, addition was made by relying on In this case, addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other seized material and statement of third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Tribunal del…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. ATUL BHIKARAM CHAVAN, AURANGABAD

In the result appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5666/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 148Section 69C

…e cheque payment was also reflected in the seized notings. Inspite of this, the addition made on the basis of notings in respect of cash transaction was not confirmed by the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT. 7.3.2 In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36 (Ahd.), addition was made by relying on seized material and statement of a third party without bringing any other evidence on record. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal deleted the addition by observing that no evidence could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that I.T.A. No.5663 & 5666/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 18 in fact the assessee had paid…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3