M/s Vyapar Industrial Ltd. 1. Bhajan Das & Bros. v. ACIT

17 SOT 5Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#16951 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Judgments citing M/s Vyapar Industrial Ltd. 1. Bhajan Das & Bros. v. ACIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pinnathevar Palanichamy, Madurai

ITA 3015/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025

For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT

Section 132

…im. According to us therefore, the above judgment supports the findings rendered by the Ld. CIT(A). 30. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the jurisdictional coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Chennai in the case of M.M. Financers (P) Ltd Vs Dy CIT (17 SOT 5). In the decided case, search action was conducted at business premises of assessee and also at premises of a known business associate, 'KM'. From the premises of 'KM', an unsigned MoU between the assessee and five others on one hand and 'KM' and 'KMR' firm on the other, was found wherein transaction for purchase of 95 acres of land for a total cons…

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…s relied on the following cases that they are applicable to the facts of the assessee's case, they are as under:- M/s Vyapar Industrial Ltd. 1. Bhajan Das & Bros v. ACIT (2009] 119 ITD 76 ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) (Agra) 2. M.M. FINANCIERS (P.) LTD. V. DCIT (2007] 17 SOT 5 ITAT (CHENNAI/URO) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Yamuna Nagar Kishore Lal Balwant Rai (2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh) 4. PCIT v. Krutika Land (P.) Ltd (2019] 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 5. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd 99 ITD 177 Delhi 6. Harish Daulatram Innani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(Inv), Cir. 11(1), Mumbai (2008] 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai) 7.…

ACIT- 22 (3), Mumbai vs. Sujal H. Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6478/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6478/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Respondent: None

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…e Mr Bhanwarlal Jain is third party for us. Further it is held in various judgements that reopening on the basis of statement of third party has no evidentiary value unless having corroborative evidence. Reliance is places in the following cases :- a.) [2007] 17 SOT 5 (CHENNAI) 5 I.T.A. No 6478/Mum/2018 Sujal H. Shah (HUF), (URO) ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'B' MM. FINANCIERS (P.) LTD. v/s DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX the hon. ITAT held that "In our opinion, there is no valid seized material representing addition of Rs. 1.49 lakhs towards undisclosed purchase consideration. It is only on surmise basis and statement…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…87 TTJ 151 (Delhi) c) Rakesh Kumar lain v. DCIT (2004) 89 TTJ 203 (Delhi) d) N.R.Malhan v. DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 908 (Delhi) e) Amarjit Singh Baxi v. ACIT (2004) 263 ITR (AT) 75 f) ACIT v. Ashokkumar Vig (2008) 15 SOT 85 (Ranchi) g) MM Financiers v. DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 5 (Chennal) h) Pankaj Dayabhai Patel HUF v. ACIT (1999) 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.) I) Radhe Developers (2010) 329 ITR 1 (Guj). j) Shri Kapidev vs. JCIT (Spl. Range, Delhi) ITA No.2259/Del/2002/A.Y. 1997-98 dated 22.03.2012. It is evident that the addition of Rs.38.45 crore and Rs.5.01 crore is based only on conjectures and surmises. There is no corroborative e…

Brij Mahajan, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 608/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Shri Brij Mahajan Vs. The A.C.I.T 2 , Avenue Cassia Westend Central Circle - 2 Greens, Rajokari New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Akdpm 1320 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan- CIT [DR]

Section 132

…ssee that sale consideration of 8 cr is correct. 12. In support of his arguments that presumption u/s 132 (4A) is rebuttable presumption he relied on the following case law a. ITO vs Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Delhi) b. M.M.Financers (P) ltd vs DCIT 17 SOT 5 (Chennai) ITAT c. ACIT vs S. Preetha ITA Nos 1313 to 1319/mds/2012 d. ACIT vs Radheshyam Poddar 41 ITD 449 (Cal ) ITAT 13. On the basis of above arguments the case of the assessee is that the AO has made the addition only on the basis of unsigned document without testing the veracity of the same even with the DVO report which was obtained by him af…