Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

328 ITR 411High Court2010#671 most cited

What is Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT authority for?

An addition to income cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 132(4) during a search, especially when such a statement is retracted and the assessee provides contrary corroborative evidence.

148

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi · Section 132(4) statement · retracted statement · evidentiary value · addition based on retracted statement · corroborative evidence · search assessment · unexplained income

Also reported as

12 Taxmann.com 257

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 148Section 37(1)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 134extinguishment of rightsgaarsection 194qretracted statementfaceless assessment schemeprotective assessmentsubstantive assessmentretraction of statementsection 151adumb documentssection 158bb(1)

Judgments citing Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…26 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…26 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…26 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal 241 Taxman 199 (Del) Chetnaben J. Shah vs. ITO: 288 CTR 579 (Guj) CIT v Smt. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (G…

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3233/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

…et were self-proving instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial authority. 24. The learned counsel further fortified his argument by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Chokshi v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)], where it was held that an admission recorded under section 132(4), if retracted, cannot form the sole basis for addition unless supported by corroborative material. The High Court noted that statements extracted under stressful or coercive circumstances, particularly during search at odd hours, often lack voluntariness and hence must be…

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

…et were self-proving instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial authority. 24. The learned counsel further fortified his argument by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Chokshi v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)], where it was held that an admission recorded under section 132(4), if retracted, cannot form the sole basis for addition unless supported by corroborative material. The High Court noted that statements extracted under stressful or coercive circumstances, particularly during search at odd hours, often lack voluntariness and hence must be…

SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/166/2025HC Karnataka20 Feb 2026

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…- 1 - ITA No. 166 of 2025 Reserved on : 20.01.2026 Pronounced on : 20.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 166 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI NARAYAN RAO HEBRI, (PAN: AASPH2926A; S/O SHRI DHUMANNA, AGE ABOUT 71 YEARS) (RESIDING AT No.1, CHINNA, S. N. NAGAR MAIN ROAD, SAGAR 577204). …APPELLANT (BY SRI K.K. CHYTHANYA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI TATA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIO…

SUPRIYA ROY,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 101/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Gty/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year 2018-2019) Vs. Ito Ward-1, Agartala Supriya Roy, Ram Thakur Trading, Central Road, Agartala, Tripura-799001 Pan No.: Acbpr 7501 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mody, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश / Order Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Chennai, Dated 13.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To Pages 9 To 16 Of The Paper Book Which Was Copy Of The Written Submission Filed. The Same Reads As Follows:- 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…having any other undisclosed assets which could be linked with this disclosure. In view of the totality of the circumstances, arguments given by the assessee and reasoning as above, the addition made is deleted." ii) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court observed that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act was later on retracted by the assessee and despite the said fact no evidence has been led by the Revenue Authority to support the additions made. On the above facts, it has been held that, to quote:- "We are, therefore, of the view that merely on…

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

…Rs.80 lakhs\nwas received on behalf of the assessee.\nIn support of the above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has referred to\nfollowing case laws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161 taxmann.com\n813)(SC);\n(b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Gij);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72 taxmann.com\n355)(Guj);\n(d) Naren Premchand Nagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of 2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020) (118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ\n36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533) (Ahd Trib);\n(h) ACIT vs. An…

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

ITA 2846/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…of Rs.80\nlakhs was received on behalf of the assessee. In support of\nthe above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has referred to following case\nlaws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161\ntaxmann.com 813)(SC);\n(b) KailashbenManharlalChokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Guj);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72\ntaxmann.com355)(Guj);\n(d) NarenPremchandNagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of\n2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020)(118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128\nTTJ 36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533)(AhdTrib);\n(h) ACIT vs. Anand K…

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

Accordingly, considering the overall factual matrix and\ndiscussions made above, we do not find any infirmity in the\nfindings arrived at by ld. CIT(A). Ground no.2 raised by the\nRevenue is thus, ...

ITA 2760/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…of Rs.80 lakhs was received on behalf of\nthe assessee. In support of the above decision, the Ld\nCIT(A) has referred to following case laws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161\ntaxmann.com 813)(SC);\n(b) KailashbenManharlalChokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Guj);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72\ntaxmann.com 355)(Guj);\n(d) NarenPremchandNagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of\n2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020)(118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ\n36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533)(AhdTrib);\n(h) ACIT vs. Anand…

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. RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP, PUNE

ITA 2721/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…of Rs.80\nlakhs was received on behalf of the assessee. In support of\nthe above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has referred to following case\nlaws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161\ntaxmann.com 813)(SC);\n(b) KailashbenManharlalChokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Guj);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72\ntaxmann.com355)(Guj);\n(d) NarenPremchandNagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of\n2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020)(118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128\nTTJ 36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533)(AhdTrib);\n(h) ACIT vs. Anand K…

RUCHA CONSULTANCY LLP,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6(1), MUMBAI, NARIMAN POINT

ITA 2359/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…f Rs.80 lakhs was received on behalf of\nthe assessee. In support of the above decision, the Ld\nCIT(A) has referred to following case laws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161\ntaxmann.com 813)(SC);\n(b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Guj);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72\ntaxmann.com355)(Guj);\n(d) NarenPremchandNagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of\n2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020)(118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ\n36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533)(AhdTrib);\n(h) ACIT vs. Anand K…

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

ITA 2358/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 250Section 69C

…Rs.80\nlakhs was received on behalf of the assessee. In support of\nthe above decision, the Ld CIT(A) has referred to following case\nlaws:-\n(a) PCIT (Central) vs. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (161\ntaxmann.com 813)(SC);\n(b) Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CIT (328 ITR 411)(Guj);\n(c) DCIT vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (72\ntaxmann.com355)(Guj);\n(d) NarenPremchandNagda vs. ITO (ITA No.3265 (Mum) of\n2015.);\n(e) CIT vs. Sant Lal (2020)(118 taxmann.com 432)(Delhi);\n(f) Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala vs. ITO (2010)(128 TTJ\n36)(Ahd);\n(g) ACIT vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995)(52 TTJ 533)(AhdTrib);\n(h) ACIT vs. Anand K…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EI RESORTS & CLUBS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3926/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…t were self- proving instruments of truth. Such an approach, he argued, stood condemned by judicial authority. 24. The learned counsel further fortified his argument by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Kailashben Chokshi v. CIT [(2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj.)], where it was held that an admission recorded under section 132(4), if retracted, cannot form the sole basis for addition unless supported by corroborative material. The High Court noted that statements extracted under stressful or coercive circumstances, particularly during search at odd hours, often lack voluntariness and hence must be…

Showing 1–20 of 148 · Page 1 of 8

...