Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO v. T. Mudduveerappa Sons.

46 TTJ 353Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1993#14224 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Judgments citing Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO v. T. Mudduveerappa Sons.

ACIT, CC, Agra vs. M/S. United Farm Product Private Limited, Agra

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

…d. vs. DCIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 239 - Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2005) 147 Taxman 652 - In case of T. Mudduveerappa Sons (1993) 45 ITD 12 (Bang.) - DCIT vs. Krorilal Aggarwal (1994) 50 TTJ (Jab.) 393 - M.V. Mathew vs. ITO (1993) 46 TTJ 353 (Coch.) - ITO vs. W.D. Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom.) 143 - Delhi ITAT in case of Shri Neeraj Goel vs. ACIT in ITA No.5951/.Del/2017 vide order dated 21.03.2018 - Mumabi ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1229/Mum/2013 vide order dated 28.02.2018 - Mumbai ITAT in case of ACIT vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd. [2017) 184 TT…

Atul Tantia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 492/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atul Tantia Deputy Commissioner Of Jc-25, Gpt Centre Income Tax – Central Circle - Vs 3(1), Kolkata Sector-Iii Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700098 [Pan : Abmpt7504K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Shri Amit Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…the jottings in diary neither represented books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under section 132(4A) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. 27. In the case of M.V. Mathew v. ITO [1993] 46 TTJ 353 (Coch.) unaccounted sum found noted in a diary and the assessee claimed that the same represented deposits from certain parties. The parties denied having deposited the amount. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as advance made by the assessee and addition on that account was made. In the absence of clinching evidence to show that the impugn…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…e merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…e merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…e merely on the basis of uncorroborated loose papers: Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT TTJ 064 786 (Del) ACIT Vs. Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO Vs. T. Mudduveerappa Sons 45 ITD 12 (Bang) M. V. Mathew Vs. ITO 46 TTJ 353 (Coch) ITO Vs. W.D. Estate Pvt. Ltd. 45 ITD 473 (Bom) CIT Vs. SMS Investments Corpn. P Ltd. 207 ITR 364fRaj) CIT (Central II) Vs. K.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230(Delhi) ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Bom). “the AO has not given any reasoning or finding or has not mentioned any evidence or material, as to how or on what basis the figures referred to…

DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai vs. M/S. Johnkumar Trust, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3092/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

…d books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under ITA Nos.3028 & 3092/Chny/2019 :: 27 :: section 132(4A) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. 27. In the case of M.V. Mathew v. ITO [1993] 46 TTJ 353 (Coch.) unaccounted sum found noted in a diary and the assessee claimed that the same represented deposits from certain parties. The parties denied having deposited the amount. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as advance made by the assessee and addition on that account was made. In the absence of clinching evidence to show that the impugn…

Shro A/ Johnkumar, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3028/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

…d books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under ITA Nos.3028 & 3092/Chny/2019 :: 27 :: section 132(4A) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. 27. In the case of M.V. Mathew v. ITO [1993] 46 TTJ 353 (Coch.) unaccounted sum found noted in a diary and the assessee claimed that the same represented deposits from certain parties. The parties denied having deposited the amount. The Assessing Officer treated the amount as advance made by the assessee and addition on that account was made. In the absence of clinching evidence to show that the impugn…

Kirori Lal Aggarwal 50 TTJ 393 (Jab) Kantilal & Bros Vs. ACIT 52 ITD 412 (Pune) ADDI ITO v. T. Mudduveerappa Sons. (46 TTJ 353) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax