Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v. CIT

14 DTR 257High Court2008#2693 most cited

What is Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on an assessee's admission, especially if it is a statement recorded under Section 132(4) at odd hours and subsequently retracted. Such admissions require corroborative evidence to be sustained.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v CIT · Section 132(4) · retracted statement · admission · corroborative evidence · voluntary statement · search assessment · additions to income

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 292CSection 69BSection 132(4A)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 132(1)(a)cash found during searchsection 134retracted statementsection 10(2a)onus of proofdumb documentsjoint development agreementincome tax settlement commissionjdasection 34percentage completion method

Judgments citing Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE)-1,, RAIPUR vs. M/S. CHHATISGARH DISTILLERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…stilleries Limited ITA No. 103/RPR/2020 & CO No.15/RPR/2023 for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 4.1.6 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) has held that merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not have been subject to additions unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 4.1.7 Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 held as under; "4. We…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Mk0 ehBk yky ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 378/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ACIT cuke Nisha Jain Vs. Central Circle E-15, Ballabh Bari Kota Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABLPJ 8118L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Adv Shri Hemang Garg…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NARESH JAIN, KOTA

ITA 374/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 133A(3)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR श्री संदीप गोसाई, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं डा० मीठा लाल मीना, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & DR MITHA LAL MEENA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 374/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ACIT Central Circle Kota बनाम Shri Naresh Jain Vs. 192, Ballabh Bari Kota स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAZPJ 0485 Η अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR निधर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Adv Shri…

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…athered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 3.4.5 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) has held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.201…

DCIT CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHARAD SHARMA, BHOPAL

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…athered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 3.4.5 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) has held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.201…

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 271/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 270/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

M/S. HINDUSTHAN BAWA BUILDERS,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 268/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 153CSection 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VIJAY JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 638/BANG/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

MR. ABDUL KHADER KODI,KASARGOD, KARNATAKA vs. MR. C. VINOD JAYAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 636/BANG/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.636 To 638/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 To 2018-19 Mr. Abdul Khader Kodi Darul Huda, Near Salafi Masjid Kunjathur Via Dcit Manjeshwar Central Circle-2 Vs. Kasargod 671 323 Mangaluru Karnataka Pan No : Alhpk5340F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed By Different Orders Of Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 To 2018-19 Having Common Date Dated 23.5.2022. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In All These Appeals Are Common In Nature, Except Change In Figures. We Consider Grounds In Ita No.636/Bang/2023, Which Reads As Follows: 1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Passing The Order In The Manner He Did. 2. The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Panaji Erred In Upholding The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer Amounting To Rs.6,25,000 As Undisclosed Business Income & Rs.1,99,40,000 As Unexplained Investments Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Was Purely On Assumptions & Presumptions Based On The Loose Sheet Found At The Time Of Search.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 34Section 68Section 69Section 69B

…/s.132(4) of the Act. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of M/s. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. vs. CIT, (2013) 257 CTR 0159. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT, 14 DTR 257 had considered an identical issue and held that statement recorded at odd hours cannot be considered to be voluntary statement, if it is subsequently retracted and necessary evidence is laid contrary to said admission and therefore admission on the basis of retracted statement U/s.132(4) of the Act was not called for. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI SAURBAH BADERIA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 02/JAB/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17 The DCIT, Central Circle, Vs Saurabh Baderia, Jabalpur 1752, Saraswati Colony, Near Parijat Colony, Baldeobagh, Jabalpur, MP (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHIPB 3208 Q Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Bardia, CA Revenue by : Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 23.11.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by Revenue against the orders o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ROHIT JAIN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 339/GTY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250

…gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 23. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.), held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 24. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 held as under; "4. We c…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ROHIT JAIN, SHILLONG

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 338/GTY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250

…gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed." 23. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.), held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 24. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 held as under; "4. We c…

DCIT-CENTRAL, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

ITA 85/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 85/Ind/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Central-Ii, Shri Sudhir Kumar Bhopal Agarwal, बनाम/ E-2/4, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaspa9450A Assessee By Shri Sumeet Neema, Sr. Advocate Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022/22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.05.2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ellaneous surrender”. Ld. AR placed reliance on following decisions: Page 5 of 25 Shri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Assessment year 2012-13 i. ACIT (1) vs. Sudeep Maheshwari ITA No. 524/Ind/2013 ii. Kailasben Mangarlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) iii. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Case No. 8 of 1999 iv. M/s Ultimate Builders vs. ACIT Central-II, Bhopal ITA No. 134/Ind/2019 5. Kailashben Manharlal Choksi 328 ITR 411 v. CIT vs. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) vi. ACIT vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind-trib) 12. Ld. AR submit…

ACIT CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANJEEV AGRAWAL, BHOPAL

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4). The learned counsel also place reliance on the various decisions including as listed below:- 1. ACIT (1) vs. Sudeep Maheshwari ITA No. 524/Ind/2013 2. Kailasben Mangarlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-(2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) 3. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 4. Ms/ Ultimate Builders vs. ACIT Central-II, Bhopal ITA No. 134/Ind/2019 5. Kailashben Manharlal Choksi 328 ITR 411 (200) 6. CIT vs. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) 7. ACIT vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind-trib) Shri San…

M/S. KAKDA STEELS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

…ed statement u/s Chokshi Vs. CIT (2008) 132(4) - statement retracted by assessee after 220 CTR (Guj) 138 : two months on the ground that it was recorded (2010) 328 ITR 411 : under coercion and duress cannot be basis of (2008) 174 TAXMAN 466 addition. : (2008) 14 DTR 257 18. Shree Ganesh Trading Held that the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) Co. v. CIT [2013] without corroborative evidence could not fasten taxmann.com 170 liability (Jharkhand) 19. Smt. Ranjnaben Held that AO could not make addition only on Mansukhlal Shah v. basis of disclosure statement without ACIT [2004] 2 881 corroboration and evidence in suppo…

THE ACIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUNIL SAHU , RAIPUR

ITA 355/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…ition has been made only on the basis of the statement declared and recorded under Section 133A of the Act. The learned CIT(A), while dealing this aspect of the matter, considered certain judgments as follows:- i. Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi Vs. CIT, (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) ii. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. CIT, Tax Case No. 8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 (Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court) iii. M/s. Ultimate Builders Vs. ACIT, Bhopal in ITA No.134/Ind/2019 dated 09.08.2019 (Ind. Trib.) iv. CIT Vs. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) v. ACIT Vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani, 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind.Trib.) 7…

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

ITA 158/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…ition has been made only on the basis of the statement declared and recorded under Section 133A of the Act. The learned CIT(A), while dealing this aspect of the matter, considered certain judgments as follows:- i. Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi Vs. CIT, (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) ii. Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. CIT, Tax Case No. 8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 (Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court) iii. M/s. Ultimate Builders Vs. ACIT, Bhopal in ITA No.134/Ind/2019 dated 09.08.2019 (Ind. Trib.) iv. CIT Vs. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) v. ACIT Vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani, 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind.Trib.) 7…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3

Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi v. CIT (14 DTR 257) — Cited in 43 Judgments | BharatTax