What is Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal authority for?

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

How many judgments cite Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal?

237 judgments on BharatTax cite Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal (82 ITD 85), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 132, Section 143(3), Section 292C, Section 132(4), Section 132(4A).

Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal (82 ITD 85)

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9148/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…f CBI vs., V.C. Shukla reported in 1998 3 SCC 410. He also relied on the following decisions : 1. ACIT vs., Ashok Kumar Poddar [2008] 16 DTR 55 [Kol.-Tribu.], 2. ACIT vs., Satyapal Wassan [2007] 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jab.-Tribu.]. 3. S.P. Goyals DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) (Mum.Tribu). 4. CIT vs Shri Praveen Juneja 99 CCH 0115 (Del. ITAT) 12.6. He submitted that a perusal of the above decisions would show that even when entries in the books of account were held to be authentic and correct, then, independent evidence was required to prove that entries were in fact correct. He submitted that in the assessee…

Vishnu Kumar Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITA 9147/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 127(1)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

…f CBI vs., V.C. Shukla reported in 1998 3 SCC 410. He also relied on the following decisions : 1. ACIT vs., Ashok Kumar Poddar [2008] 16 DTR 55 [Kol.-Tribu.], 2. ACIT vs., Satyapal Wassan [2007] 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jab.-Tribu.]. 3. S.P. Goyals DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) (Mum.Tribu). 4. CIT vs Shri Praveen Juneja 99 CCH 0115 (Del. ITAT) 12.6. He submitted that a perusal of the above decisions would show that even when entries in the books of account were held to be authentic and correct, then, independent evidence was required to prove that entries were in fact correct. He submitted that in the assessee…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 219/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…n 158BB. (iii) Deletion of additions made by Tribunal of assumed undeclared payments made for purchase of property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) : Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India – 30 ITJ 197 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Court held that without any independent evidence or corroborative material, no addition is permissible o…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 218/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…n 158BB. (iii) Deletion of additions made by Tribunal of assumed undeclared payments made for purchase of property was on basis of facts. Ashwani Kumar V. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 (Del) and Daya Chand V. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 327 (Del) and S.P. Goel V. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) : Nine out of 19 slips found were without any name or amount and therefore were dumb documents and no adverse inference could be drawn. Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India – 30 ITJ 197 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Court held that without any independent evidence or corroborative material, no addition is permissible o…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Phozo Digital Press Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…s totally unjustified. The entire finding of the Tribunal is based on the facts. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 6.2. Similarly, the coordinate bench of ITAT, Pune in S.P. Goyal v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax[2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai) (TM)/[2002] 77 TTJ 1 (Mumbai) (T) on reference, third member agreed with the view of the Accountant Member and held that loose sheet itself has no intrinsic value unless it is supported by the corroborative evidence. For the sake of clarity we, extract the view of the Hon’ble third member which reads as under: “15. Lastly, the Hon’ble Vic…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Phozo Digital Press Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.04/Viz/2021& 05/Viz/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Years :2015-16& 2016-17) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Phozo Digital Press Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax D.No.48-13-18, Bhagavan Castle Central Circle-1 Sri Janakirama Street Visakhapatnam Sri Nagar, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aagcp7803H]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…s totally unjustified. The entire finding of the Tribunal is based on the facts. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.” 6.2. Similarly, the coordinate bench of ITAT, Pune in S.P. Goyal v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax[2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai) (TM)/[2002] 77 TTJ 1 (Mumbai) (T) on reference, third member agreed with the view of the Accountant Member and held that loose sheet itself has no intrinsic value unless it is supported by the corroborative evidence. For the sake of clarity we, extract the view of the Hon’ble third member which reads as under: “15. Lastly, the Hon’ble Vic…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1470/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA

Section 132Section 132(4)

…l. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 70 ITJ (Ahd.) 122. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1469/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA

Section 132Section 132(4)

…l. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 70 ITJ (Ahd.) 122. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The…

ACIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai vs. Arvinda Nandagopal, Chennai

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

ITA 1468/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1468, 1469 & 1470/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2013-14) Vs Shri Arvinda Nandagopal, The Asst. Commissioner Of No.6, 6Th Street, Rutland Gate, Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 21), Chennai – 600 006. Chennai. Pan: Aafpa6259G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Srinivasa Rao, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.M. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao:

For Appellant: Shri Srinivasa Rao, CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Mohandass, CA

Section 132Section 132(4)

…l. In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri V.C. Shukla & Others, (1998) 3 SCC 410 and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum), Satnam Singh Chhabra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2002] 74 TTJ (LKW) 976, S.K. Gupta vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [1999] 63 TTJ (Del) 532, Prarthana Constructions Pvt. Ltd., vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2001] 70 ITJ (Ahd.) 122. 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The…

Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 777/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…Bench, Guwahati in the case of M/s. Fantastic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati vs., 07. ITO, Ward-2(1), Guwahati in ITA.No.104/Gau/2011 & SP.No.09/Gau/2011, Dated 07.02.2012. 08. Order of ITAT, Mumbai D-Bench-T.M. Mumbai in the case of S.P. Goyal vs., DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 [Mum.]. 09. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Smt. P.K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 [SC]. 7. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that re- assessment proceedings have been rightly initiated based on the agreement found during the course of search in…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…el) 786], ACIT v/s. Sri RadheShyamPoddar - [(1992) 41 ITD 441 (Cal)], Ashwini Kumar v/s. ITO - [(1992) 42 TTJ (Del) 644)], D.A. Patel v/s. Dy. CIT- [(2000)72 ITD 340 (Mum)], ACIT v/s. Rakesh M. Shah - [(2004) ISOT (Mum) 224], S.P. Goyal v/s. Dy. CIT - [(2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM)], Dy. CIT v/s Ex. Of the Estate of Late Shri D.K. Shah - [I.T.A. No. M/s. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Developers Ltd., 2996/M/02, Order Dated 23 January, 2013 (Mumbai-Trib)], Amarjit Singh Bakshi [HUF] v/s. ACIT [(2003) 263 ITR (AT) 75 (Del) (TM)], S.K. Gupta v/s. Dy. CIT-[(1999)63 TTJ (Del) 532], Vijaybhai H. Shah v/s. Dy. CIT - [(2006) 6…

Birendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019