M. Narayanan & Bros. v. ACIT

102 TTJ 316Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#9498 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234B

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)section 40a(3)entry operatorsection 40asearch assessmentdocuments seizedsection 153dsection 234aaccommodation entrysection 133asection 40

Judgments citing M. Narayanan & Bros. v. ACIT

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ferred above,\nwe see no infirmity in the impugned order granting partial relief to the assessee.\nHence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.”\n3.11.8 He relied on the judgement in the case of ACIT vs\nJanak Raj Chauhan [2006] 102 TTJ 316 ASR wherein it was held as\nunder:\n“Additions on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4), nothing on records to show\nthat there exist positive evidence found during search in support of such an\nstatement. Addition not justified till there exists any conclusive evidence on records\nin support of statement.\"\n3.11.9 Further, he submitted that it…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…s referred above, we see no infirmity in the impugned order granting partial relief to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed." 3.11.8 He relied on the judgement in the case of ACIT vs Janak Raj Chauhan [2006] 102 TTJ 316 ASR wherein it was held as under: “Additions on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4), nothing on records to show that there exist positive evidence found during search in support of such an statement. Addition not justified till there exists any conclusive evidence on records in support of statement." 3.11.9 Further, he submitted that it is set…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…s referred above, we see no infirmity in the impugned order granting partial relief to the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 3.11.8 He relied on the judgement in the case of ACIT vs Janak Raj Chauhan [2006] 102 TTJ 316 ASR wherein it was held as under: “Additions on the basis of statement made u/s 132(4), nothing on records to show that there exist positive evidence found during search in support of such an statement. Addition not justified till there exists any conclusive evidence on records in support of statement.” 3.11.9 Further, he submitted that it is set…

DCIT CEN CIR 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PECCADILY ESTATE P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 4029/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () - 2010-11 - 2009-10 - 2011-12

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ow:- “1) "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of on-money of Rs. 3,90,53,280/- received on sale of flats relying on the observation and decision in the case of ACIT vs. Janak Raj Chauhan (102 TTJ 316) (Amritsar) and Maheshwari Industries vs. ACIT (148 Taxman 74(Jodh.) (Mag)) without appreciating the facts that the addition was made on the basis of the statement of the Director Shri Haresh Mohanalal Mehta and three key employees of the assesses group namely Ms. Chaula Joshi (Sales and Marketing Executive of Rohan Group) and Mr. Vijay Jasani (A…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1283/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1282/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1281/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1071/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…

GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1070/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1281 To 1284/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 132Section 132(4)

…l Chokshi v. CIT [328 ITR 411(Guj H.C.)] c. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers P. Ltd. v. DCIT [102 ITD 375 (Pune Trib)] d. CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni [166 Taxmann 371 (Raj H.C.)] e. M. Narayanan & Bros v. ACIT [339 ITR 192 Mad H.C.)] f. ACIT v. Janak Raj Chauhan [102 TTJ 316 (Asr Trib)] g. Maheshwari Industries v. ACIT [81 TTJ 914 (Jodh Trib)] h. Jyotibhaichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons P. Ltd. V. DCIT [139 ITD 10 (Pune Trib.)] i. M/s. Avishkar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. DCIT [7165/Mum./2011] 7. In view of the above decisions and the facts of the case, the assessee submits that the learned CIT(A) is justified in dele…