Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT

73 ITD 434Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#16147 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

dumb documentson-moneysection 292cloose paperssection 132(4)section 131incriminating materialundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 153asection 132section 13

Judgments citing Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…y proceedings has a strong evidentiary value and is binding on a person, who makes it. 6.5.8 Other Decisions Relied upon by the Appellant The Decisions relied upon the Appellant are discussed as under - Relying on the decisions referred as 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), 73 ITD 434 (Chd) & 63 TTJ 236 (Del) it is argued that it is trite law that the person making an admission is not always bound by it but, if shown that it was due to ambiguity, under tension or was against the facts. it can always be retracted. As discussed admission under oath on the basis of incriminating documents found during the search is an important p…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…one. According to Ld AR, a suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. In support of her contentions, the Ld AR has further cited the following judicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…one. According to Ld AR, a suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. In support of her contentions, the Ld AR has further cited the following judicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have…

ROHAN MEHTA, (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR JITENDRA N MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…one. According to Ld AR, a suspicion cannot be the basis of addition. In support of her contentions, the Ld AR has further cited the following judicial precedents to press home the issues flagged by her as mentioned above:- a) Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 434 (Chd.) b) Manoj Prabhakar v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Delhi) 625. c) Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) d) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 293 (Punj.) (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of Late Jitendra Mehta} 16. Considered the rival submissions and have…

M/S MURLIDHAR DEENDYAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the AO is directed to restrict the penalty to Rs 28,240/- and the remaining penalty is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 1389/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…Various Benches of the ITAT have taken similar view such as in the cases of ITA No. 1389-JP-2018 M/s Murlidhar Deen Dayal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer R. K. Synthetics 30 TW 228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 434 (Chd): (2000) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) & Rishab Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ 236 (Del). In the case of Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del), held that computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of the assessee was not justified. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the AO to restrict…

MURLIDHAR DEENDYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 329/JPR/2016[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Feb 2020
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Manmohan Kandpal (ACIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234B

…view in the case of ITO vs. Suresh Chandra Koolwal (2004) 32 TW 23 (Jp). Various Benches of the ITAT have taken similar view such as in the cases of R. K. synthetics 30 TW 228 (Jd). Ashok Kumar Soni vs. DCIT (2001) 72 TTJ 323 (Jd), Karam Chand vs. ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 434 (Chd): (2000) 68 TTJ 789 (Chd) & Rishab Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ 236 (Del). In the case of Rajesh Jain v/s DCIT (2006) 100 TTJ 929 (Del), held that computation of undisclosed income solely on the basis of confessional statement of the assessee was not justified. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I direct the A.O. to restri…

Karam Chand v. Asstt. CIT (73 ITD 434) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax