Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. CIT, Ranchi

266 CTR 175High Court2014#3267 most cited

What is Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. CIT, Ranchi authority for?

Loose sheets seized during a search are considered 'documents' within the meaning of section 158B(b), and there is a presumption under section 132(4A) regarding such seized documents. The assessee must produce rebuttal evidence to disprove entries made in these loose sheets.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mahabir Prasad Rungta · CIT · Ranchi · 2014 · section 158B(b) · section 132(4A) · loose sheets · seized documents · presumption · rebuttal evidence · addition upheld

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionsection 158bb(1)section 158b(b)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 153c(1)section 31statement under section 132(4)block periodsection 292bjoint development agreementthird party information

Judgments citing Mahabir Prasad Rungta v. CIT, Ranchi

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA Nos.373 to 376 & 382/Bang/2024 M/s. Kesar Marble & Granites Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.373 to 376 & 382/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 respectively M/s. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd. 23/2,, Coffeeday Sqaure Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560 001 PAN NO : AAACK4640D APPELLANT DCIT Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Bangalore RESPONDENT Appellant by Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.07…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 373/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…ITA Nos.373 to 376 & 382/Bang/2024 M/s. Kesar Marble & Granites Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.373 to 376 & 382/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2018-19 respectively M/s. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd. 23/2,,Coffeeday Sqaure Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore 560 001 DCIT Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Bangalore PAN NO : AAACK4640D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R. Date of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…ITA No.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannu, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur S-11, Golden Orchid Apartments Kasturba Road Bangalore 560 001 PAN NO: BXXPM1852K APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Vs. DCIT Central circle-1(1) Bangalore RESPONDENT Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2024 : 12.06.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI,…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…ITA No.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannu, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.835 & 836/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Sri Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur S-11, Golden Orchid Apartments Kasturba Road Bangalore 560 001 PAN NO: BXXPM1852K APPELLANT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals by same a…

Rajender Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3434/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…pon catena of judgments. The list of which are as under: 1. CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann. Com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 2. Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. CIT (2014) 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 3. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 280 CTR 209 (Kerala) 4. Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 5. Baldev Raj vs. CIT [2010] 2 tamann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryan…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…ourt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as ' documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding documents seized and in light of such presumption, asses…

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5727/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…ourt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as ' documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding documents seized and in light of such presumption, asses…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Developers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 4058/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…urt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as 1 documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding 10 documents seized and in light of such presumptio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2603/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…urt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as 1 documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding 10 documents seized and in light of such presumptio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2600/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…urt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as 1 documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding 10 documents seized and in light of such presumptio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2599/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumaray 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. RASTOGI, ADVFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. RANA, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 69C

…urt held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible explanation. 3- Mahabir Prasad Runqta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/r20141 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information and thus those are to be regarded as 1 documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding 10 documents seized and in light of such presumptio…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vikas Jain, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 4075/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 132Section 153ASection 292C

…Vs. Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs. CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jhankhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs. CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Harya…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4248/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryana)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4247/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryana)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 4246/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryana)…

Vasudeva Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue for AY 2008-09 is

ITA 3669/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Sh. Ashish GoelFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153C

…CIT Vs Sonal Construction [2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT] (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala[2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi) 3. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 (Jharkhand) 4. Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 (Kerala) 5. Ashok Kumar Vs CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR 342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) 6. Baldev Raj Vs CIT [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & Haryana)…