Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

136 ITR 889High Court1992#3417 most cited

What is Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

This case is authority for the proposition that an appeal can be adjudicated in favor of the appellant, leading to the deletion of additions made to income.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax · 136 ITR 889 · section 132 · section 69A · appeal adjudication · deletion of addition

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 144Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

circle ratesection 132(4a)section 69bsection 48survey under section 133asection 292cloose papersdocuments seizedsection 50cbusiness connectionsection 50dumb documents

Judgments citing Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5104/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5103/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5102/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5101/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5100/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5099/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sameer Mutreja, Gurgaon vs. JCIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5098/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Gurgoan vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4957/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Gurgoan vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4956/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Haryana vs. JCIT (OSD), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4955/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Gurgoan vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4954/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Gurgoan vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4953/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Gurgoan vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4952/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Sachin Mutreja, Haryana vs. JCIT(OSD), Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4951/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 147Section 69A

…uments, and the Assessing Officer has proceeded merely on assumptions and presumptions without any corroborative evidence. a. D. N. Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, [2023] 454 ITR 595 (SC) b. Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax,136 ITR 889 (Calcutta) - para 7 & 8 c. Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT, [2004] 265 ITR 25 (Calcutta) - para 8 d. CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007] 294 ITR 78 (Punjab & Haryana) - para 7 & 8 e. CIT v. K.K. Abdul Kareem [1996] 88 TAXMAN 323 (KER.) - para 22-29 & 31 f. ACIT v. Trilok Chaudhary, ITA No. 1450/Del/2024 - para 16-18 & 77 g. ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka, ITA N…

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle 3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 821/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69A

…O (ITA No. 1084/CHD/2008) (b) Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of (ITO Vs. Nagardas Jashraj- 28 ITD 386 Ahd) Advertisement (c) Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kantilal Chandulal & Co., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (136 ITR 889 (Cal)) (d) Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Karthik Construction Co., (ITA No. 2292/Mum./2016 and, (e) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri. Parvez Mohammed Hussain Ghaswala in ITA 3318/Mum./2013) 5.2.3 I have gone through the materialistic facts of the case and contention of the appellant. Du…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Jammu vs. Anita Kapahi, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 557/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

…9 I.T.A. No.557/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Officer, Impugned order of Tribunal deleting addition was to be confirmed-Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee)" Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. KTMS Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113 has held that "In order to make assessment u/s 69A for undisclosed income, the assessee must not only be a person who is in possession of undisclosed income, but he should also be the owner of the same." (j) Addition made on basis of photocopy of an unregistered document On the issue of use of photocopy of unregistered documents while framing t…

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

…ed on the following judgments as follows:- 7. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench 'A' in case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Pune, [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.). 8. Calcutta High Court in Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 889. 9. The Madras High Court in the case Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113/92 Taxman 169. of CIT v. K.T.M.S. 10. The Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553. 11.CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007]294 ITR 78/[2008] 168 Taxman 150 (Punj. & Har.). 12. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. GSNR Rice Industries (P.) Ltd…

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

…ed on the following judgments as follows:- 7. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench 'A' in case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Pune, [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.). 8. Calcutta High Court in Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 889. 9. The Madras High Court in the case Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113/92 Taxman 169. of CIT v. K.T.M.S. 10. The Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553. 11.CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007]294 ITR 78/[2008] 168 Taxman 150 (Punj. & Har.). 12. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. GSNR Rice Industries (P.) Ltd…

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

…ed on the following judgments as follows:- 7. The Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench 'A' in case of Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal v. Tax Recovery Officer, Range-3, Pune, [2014] 47 taxmann.com 293 (Pune - Trib.). 8. Calcutta High Court in Kantilal Chandulal & Co. v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 889. 9. The Madras High Court in the case Mohammad [1997] 228 ITR 113/92 Taxman 169. of CIT v. K.T.M.S. 10. The Calcutta High Court in Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553. 11.CIT v. Ravi Kumar [2007]294 ITR 78/[2008] 168 Taxman 150 (Punj. & Har.). 12. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. GSNR Rice Industries (P.) Ltd…

Sahil Singla, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

…has rightly been placed, without any contra reliance, on judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high Court in case of ‘CIT Vs Ravi Kumar’, 294 ITR 78 (P&H), wherein, after relying on the judgment of the Calcutta H.C in case of ‘Kantilal Chandulal & Co. vs CIT’ 136 ITR 889 (Cal) it been held as follows: "2 conditions are required to apply previsions of Section 69 i.e.: I. The assessee should be found the owner of any specific asset. II. The said asset should not be found recorded in Books of Account, if any maintained by the Assessee 11. Apropos the order under appeal, the CIT (A) has upheld the additions made by…