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

190 TTJ 681Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2017#1452 most cited
78

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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-2, Trichy vs. No 1 Auto Finance, Karur

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

ITA 656/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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 vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

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

ITA 633/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 vs. Help Line Motor Finance, Karur

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

ITA 622/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

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, Chennai vs. K S Palanisamy, Erode

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

ITA 660/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.660/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of K.S. Palanisamy, Income Tax, Vs. Kuppagounden Valasu, Central Circle - 2(4), Avalpoondurai, Erode 638 115. Chennai. [Pan: Ajipp-8193-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Dated 31.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Deletion Of Addition Made On Account Of Alleged Receipts From M/S. Srs Mining.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 34

…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, Τ.S. Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACIT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). We also note that by relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union…

DCIT Central Circle-2(2) Chennai, Chennai vs. Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Pallipalayam

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 629/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.:628 & 629/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Thangamani Perumal Gounder, Income Tax, Vs. 5/6/183, Govindampalayam Central Circle - 2(2), Alampalayam, Pallipalayam 638 008. Chennai. [Pan: Abcpt-7700-K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Two Appeals At The Instance Of The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 19, Chennai Both Dated 10.12.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Common Issue Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. The Ita Nos.628 & 629/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…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, Τ.Σ Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.4.18 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payment…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-Objections

ITA 3192/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3188 To 3192/Chny/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 & Cross-Objection Nos.22 To 26/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Acit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. : : : : Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Old No.16/5, New No.33/5, Rajamannar Street, Thyagaraya Nagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Actpv 0618 E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, Cit Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate 28.04.2025 30.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As `Ld.Cit(A) `) All Dated 17.10.2024 For The

Section 132Section 153ASection 15ASection 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 ITA Nos.3188 - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 - 26/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015-16 to 2020-21) Kasthoori Raja Dhanush ::15 :: [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 (All). 6.…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3190/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…operties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT- -Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal mbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT ITA Nos.3188 - - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 CO Nos.22 - 26/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015 2015-16 to 2020-21) Kasthoori Raja Dhanush Kasthoori Raja Dha…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3189/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…operties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT- -Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal mbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT ITA Nos.3188 - - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 CO Nos.22 - 26/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015 2015-16 to 2020-21) Kasthoori Raja Dhanush Kasthoori Raja Dha…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Kasthoori Raja Dhanush, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross

ITA 3188/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sheila Parthasarthy, CIT
Section 132Section 15A

…operties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT- -Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal mbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT ITA Nos.3188 - - 3192/Chny/2024 & CO Nos.22 CO Nos.22 - 26/Chny/2025 (AYs 2015 2015-16 to 2020-21) Kasthoori Raja Dhanush Kasthoori Raja Dha…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’"यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2220/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 v. The DCIT, Shri Jagannathan Sekat, Central Circle-2(4), No.5 Fifth Street, Chennai. Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [PAN: BCDPS 4688 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department by : Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT Assessee by : Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CA : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date of Hearing 03.12.2024 : घोषण…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai

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

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Мит Т) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed earlier that the AO has come to the conclusion that…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

ITA 674/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mит Т) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed earlier that the AO has come to the conclusion…

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 673/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Мит Т) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed earlier that the AO has come to the conclusion that…

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3266/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

…ient to establish that the assessee-trust has accepted capitation fees. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws (i) Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) (ii) Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) (iii) ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Мит Т) (iv) ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party' was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence.” 24. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in the instant case. We noticed earlier that the AO has come to the conclusion…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 399/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…placed on – Page No. | 42 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga i. Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) ii. Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) iii. ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) iv. ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party’ was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence. 48. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has right from the date of search till the completion of the Ld.CI…

Natwar Lal Gala, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…placed on – Page No. | 42 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga i. Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) ii. Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) iii. ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) iv. ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party’ was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence. 48. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has right from the date of search till the completion of the Ld.CI…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 397/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…placed on – Page No. | 42 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga i. Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) ii. Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) iii. ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) iv. ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party’ was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence. 48. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has right from the date of search till the completion of the Ld.CI…

Natwar Lal Daga, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-52, Mumbai

ITA 396/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 68

…placed on – Page No. | 42 ITA NOs. 396, 397, 398 & 399/MUM/2021 ITA NOs. 570, 571, 572 & 573/MUM/2021 M/s. Natwarlal Daga i. Common Cause vs UOI – 394 ITR 220 (SC) ii. Sunil Kumar Sharma vs DCIT – 448 ITR 485 (Kar) iii. ACIT vs Katrina Rosemary Turcotte – 190 TTJ 681 (Mum T) iv. ACIT vs Kishore Lal Balwant Rai – 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh T) – the Tribunal has held that addition cannot be sustained as statement of ‘third party’ was not supported by independent and corroborative evidence. 48. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee has right from the date of search till the completion of the Ld.CI…

Ballela Sai Sree, Nellore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 9/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 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 (TM) ITAT, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACIT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in th…

Karthik Raghupathi Reddy Padi, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 83/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl.No.

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 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 (TM) ITAT, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACIT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in th…