How many judgments cite Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO (128 TTJ 36), spanning 2019 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 69C, Section 132(4), Section 147.

Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO

128 TTJ 36Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2550 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 69A Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 69C Section 132(4)Section 147 Section 132(4A)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

hundi transaction principal chief commissioner of income-tax section 23(1)(a)peak credit theory section 23(1)third party information faceless assessment scheme annual letting value section 245d(4)section 131(1)section 65b on-money

Judgments citing Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO

A.C.I.T., Circle-49(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Viswakarma Residency, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 255/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. M.L.Meenaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Years:2016-17 बनाम / Acit, Cir-49(1), Kolkata M/S. Viswakarma Residency Uttarpan Complex, Ds-Iv, V/S. 2Nd Fl., Manicktala Civick Centre, Block-2 & 3, 2Nd Fl., Kolkata-700 054. Pan: Aaifv3279Q अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. Hearing Through Video Conferencing अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Kanojia, Cit, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-08-2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26-10-2021

Section 131Section 133(6)

…of Pr. CIT v. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.); CIT v. D. Kanta [2012] 19 taxmann.com 92/205 Taxman 115 (Kar.) (Mag.) : Smt. Renu Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT[2017] 88 taxmann.com 872 (JP Trib.); Jawahurbhai Atmaram Hathiwala v. ITO [2010] 128 TTJ 36(Ahd.) (UO) ; Harish Daulatram Innani v. Dy. CfT 120081 24 SOT 541 (Mum.) it has been held that AO was not justified in making addition u/s 698 by solely relying upon statements or deponents that he, had admitted of having received on money in cash. Reference is also made to the decisions in the case of CIT v, Rahul Vineet Traders [2014] 41taxmann.…

DCIT, CC -6(3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh J. Jogani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6828/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 6828/मुं/2018 (िन. व. 2013-14) Dcit, Cc-6(3), Room No.1926, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 ...... अपीलाथ- /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Rajesh J. Jogani Bw-7012/13, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Abnpj1523F ..... .ितवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Jaiswal [DR (CIT)]For Respondent: None

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

…saction. 4 ITA No. 6828 Mum 2018-Shri Rajesh J. Jogani 5. The CIT(A) after considering the document on record and the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Rivera Properties Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai Trib.) and Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO reported in 128 TTJ 36 (Ahmd. Trib.) and various other decisions held that the addition made on the basis of documents/loose papers seized from third party premises without any corroborative evidence cannot be sustained. 6. It is an un-rebutted fact that the loose sheets on the basis of which addition has been made in the present case were seized from the premises of t…

Karuturi Vijaya Bharathi, Guntur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. Karuturi Vijaya Bharathi, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), D.No. 1-2-8, Presidency Guntur. Apartment, 1St Floor, 1St Line, Jkc Nagar, Guntur. Pan No. Blupk 0068 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

…ual consideration in the purchase of the property is on the Revenue and it had failed to discharge the said burden.‖ 20. The A.R. further relied upon the ITAT Ahmedabad `C' Bench decision in the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala Vs. ITO reported in (2010) 128 TTJ 36, wherein under similar set of facts, the Hon’ble ITAT decided the issue in favour of the assessee as under: ―The assessee has claimed to have made payment of Rs.1,01,687/- only upto 31st March, 1999 and has consistently taken the stand that it has not paid balance amount of Rs.3,81,414/- as stated in the seized document. No evidence could be broug…

Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…ilders (52 SOT 62) Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench held that AO was not justified to make addition on the basis of statement of one of the purchaser who subsequently retracted his statement in cross-examination. (h) In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala [128 TTJ 36] addition on account of on money was made for purchase of flat. In this case, during the course of search documents were seized from developer firm which indicated that assessee has made payment of on money for purchase of a flat. It was held by Hon'ble ITAT, ITA No. 401/Ahd/14 & 8 Ors. [Savaliya Buildcon & Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 201…

M/S. Savaliya Buildcon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR