Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties v. ACIT

190 TTJ 681Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#1453 most cited
78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Regency Mahavir Properties v. ACIT · Ltd Vs. DCIT · search and seizure assessment · Section 132 · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 292C · retraction of statement · evidentiary value of seized documents · unexplained money · capitation fees

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 153CSection 292CSection 132(4)Section 153ASection 1961

Issues it is cited on

section 292cchundi transactionsection 23(3)section 153(c)(1)section 132(4a)(i)section 292c(1)(i)section 292c(1)section 153(c)section 131(1)retraction of statementcorpus donationsection 132(4a)

Judgments citing Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties v. ACIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…e are devoid of evidentiary value. Some of the decisions to this effect are; MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). No corroborative evidence has been brought on record to demonstrate actual flow of money. The assessmen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) ITAT, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.27 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GNANAGURU LAVANYA, TIRUPUR

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.27 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER PALANIAPPA GOUNDER MARIAPPAN, KARUR

ITA 1631/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.2.13 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the narrations indicating payme…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. LIFE LINE AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.5.11 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the narrations indicating payme…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT- Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.22 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payment…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT- Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.22 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payment…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…to establish that the assessee-trust has\naccepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24.\nWe shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the concl…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2275/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…to establish that the assessee-trust has\naccepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…also placed on the following case laws\n43\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1, MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…also placed on the following case laws\n43\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…to establish that the assessee-trust has\naccepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…to establish that the assessee-trust has\naccepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1514/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…gned\naddition requires to be deleted.\n44\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…also placed on the following case laws\n44\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…also placed on the following case laws\n44\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…to establish that the assessee-trust has\naccepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24.\nWe shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the concl…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…also placed on the following case laws\n43\nITA Nos.1509 to 1515 & 2270 to 2276/Mum/2025\nRamrao Adik Education Society\n(i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC)\n(ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar)\n(iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T)\n(iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the\nTribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third\nparty' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.”\n24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed\nearlier that the AO has come to the conclu…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NO 1 AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 658/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247. 6.3.13 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating the advancemen…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NO 1 AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

ITA 657/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

…tries has been reiterated in several decisions. Some of the decisions to this effect are MM Financiers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247. 6.3.13 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating the advancemen…

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

Ltd Vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties v. ACIT (190 TTJ 681) — Cited in 78 Judgments | BharatTax