Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

395 ITR 235High Court2017#3385 most cited

What is Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A statement made by a partner during a search cannot be retracted by another partner without evidence of pressure or coercion by the revenue. Similarly, income surrendered via a declaration cannot be withdrawn later without a satisfactory explanation.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT · retraction of statement · search · surrendered income · burden of proof · section 132(4) · satisfactory explanation · coercion · pressure

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44AD

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessmentsection 153(a)(1)substantive assessmentsection 153a proceedingssection 65bsurrender of incomestatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 153(a)explanation to section 37section 158bdsection 80h

Judgments citing Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1661/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…remises, since assessee had merely denied said investments without tendering any credible examination, there was no discharge of initial burden of proof on part of assessee, thus, impugned addition was justified. (ii) Pr.CIT New Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia 395 ITR 235 (Delhi High Court) wherein it is held that the assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdraw same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain. (iii) T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT Mumbai, 386 ITR 24 5 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is he…

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1660/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…remises, since assessee had merely denied said investments without tendering any credible examination, there was no discharge of initial burden of proof on part of assessee, thus, impugned addition was justified. (ii) Pr.CIT New Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia 395 ITR 235 (Delhi High Court) wherein it is held that the assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdraw same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain. (iii) T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT Mumbai, 386 ITR 24 5 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is he…

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…remises, since assessee had merely denied said investments without tendering any credible examination, there was no discharge of initial burden of proof on part of assessee, thus, impugned addition was justified. (ii) Pr.CIT New Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia 395 ITR 235 (Delhi High Court) wherein it is held that the assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdraw same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain. (iii) T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT Mumbai, 386 ITR 24 5 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is he…

M/S Spr Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 1 (3), Bengaluru

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

…remises, since assessee had merely denied said investments without tendering any credible examination, there was no discharge of initial burden of proof on part of assessee, thus, impugned addition was justified. (ii) Pr.CIT New Delhi vs. Avinash Kumar Setia 395 ITR 235 (Delhi High Court) wherein it is held that the assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdraw same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain. (iii) T. Lakhamshi Ladha & Co. vs. CIT Mumbai, 386 ITR 24 5 (Bombay High Court) wherein it is he…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Sri M J Mohan, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Mr. Manikkudi Jayaraman Mohan, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.276 To 281/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132(4)

…on. The Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws in support of his contentions:- (a) T.Lakhamshi Ladha & Co vs. CIT (2016)(386 ITR 245)(Bom) (b) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2015)(373 ITR 9)(Delhi) (c) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia (2017)(395 ITR 235)(Delhi) ITA Nos.276 to 281/Bang/2018 & ITA No.2713/Bang/2017 Sri M.J. Mohan, Bangalore Page 12 of 23 Accordingly he submitted that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs.25 crores made by the AO. 15. The Ld A.R, in the rejoinder, submitted that the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 crores is not based on any material and furt…

Avinash Kumar Setia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1814/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiavinash Kumar Setia, Vs. Dcit, B-33, Shivalik, Malvia Nagar, Central Circle-17, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abbps9057K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…me and also submitted inaccurate particulars of income penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated. Consequently, the addition of the above sum challenged by the assessee before the various forums was ultimately confirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 395 ITR 235. Thus, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed by the ld AO on 29.03.2014 levying penalty of Rs. 4141114/-. The above order was challenged before the ld CIT (A) who confirmed the levy of the penalty vide order dated 02.01.2015 which is challenged before us. 4. The ld Authorized Representative coming to the ground of the appeal submi…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1659/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The Acit Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “Sparc” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The Acit 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 Ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri R.C. Panday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Cross-Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Vadodara [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cab/(A)- 2/387/2014-15 Dated 31/03/2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 14/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09. Ita Nos.1659/Ahd/2015 (By Assessee) & Ita No.1689/Ahd/2015 (By Revenue) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst.Year - 2008-09 2

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.C. Panday, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(2)(b)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1659/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1689/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2008-09 ) बनाम/ 1. Sun Pharmaceuticals 1. The ACIT Industries Ltd. Cen.Cir-1 Vs. “SPARC” Tandalja Baroda – 20 2. The ACIT 2. Sun Pharmaceu- Central Circle-1 ticals Industries Baroda Ltd. Baroda. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADCS 3124K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respo…

M/S. Marvel Crafts, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5793/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Bharat Bhushan Bhatia &For Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133A

…d the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee for setting aside of the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer should be rejected. 7.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setia reported in 395 ITR 235, she submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and withdrew the same after two years without any satisfactory 5 explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and hence, the addition would sustain. Referring to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court deci…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Umesh Gupta, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Umesh Gupta, Circle-39(1), W-33, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaepg4743J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 133A

…declaration and withdraws it after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain. _ [Pr. CIT V Avinashh Sethia] [[2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi)/ [2017] 248 Taxman 106 (Delhi)/ [2017] 395 ITR 235 (Delhi). 13. Further page number 16 of the assessment order shows that assessee has failed to substantiate even the retraction made by him. Assessee did not submit that which of the suppliers have inflated the bills and when such suppliers have paid cash back to the assessee. He has not submitted any records or any names of the suppliers and furt…