Nanakchand Kanhiyalal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

73 TTJ 585Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2001#25576 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153CSection 69ASection 69CSection 133ASection 132Section 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133abusiness connectiondumb documentssection 132(4a)loose papersdocuments seizedunexplained expendituresection 69csection 133section 133aincome-tax officersection 132(4)

Judgments citing Nanakchand Kanhiyalal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Kolsa Khadan Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sillewada Project, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…igh Court order in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sant Lal, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) 7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…igh Court order in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sant Lal, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) 7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documen…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…igh Court order in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sant Lal, [2020] 118 taxmann.com 432 (Delhi) 7 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 11. Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Nanakchand Kanhiyalal V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, [2001] 73 TTJ 585 (JP.) 12. Hon'ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, Income-Tax Officer V. Balram Jakhar, [2006] 8 SOT 1 (ASR.)(URO). Also as the debit vouchers do not contain the title, signature, name of the appellant firm and neither are found from the possession of the appellant nor part of books of accounts of the appellant firm. Therefore, these vouchers are dumb documen…

Nanakchand Kanhiyalal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (73 TTJ 585) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax