(P) Ltd. v. ACIT

115 TTJ 173Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2022#5593 most cited

What is (P) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Where an assessee receives share application money and claims it was invested by a director taking an advance from another company, but fails to establish the creditworthiness of the share applicant or the genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer is justified in making additions under Section 68 and concluding that the assessee routed its own money through conduit companies.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

(P) Ltd. v. ACIT · 115 TTJ 173 · 137 Taxmann.com 146 · Section 68 · share application money · creditworthiness of creditors · genuineness of transaction · unexplained cash credits · additions under Section 68 · conduit companies

Also reported as

137 Taxmann.com 146

Judgments citing (P) Ltd. v. ACIT

Veenita Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1199/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2009-10 Veenita Enterprise Pvt. The DCIT, Ltd. Central Circle-1(1), 512/10, Road No.4, Vs Ahmedabad Kathwada GIDC, P Phase-2, Kathwada, Ahmedabad-382230 PAN: AACCV2313G (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Divyang Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 19-03-2024 Date of pronouncement : 14-06-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed b…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…Singh M. Rathod (2005) 148 taxman 35 (Ahd)(Mag) vi. Shree Chand Soni Vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd) 1028 vii. Basant Bansal Vs. ACIT, Jaipur [63 Taxmann.com 199] viii. ACIT Vs. Shri. Johari lal Sodhani [ITA 145/Jp/2013] ix. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. [115 TTJ 173] (Mum) In fact, we find that the CBDT in its Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv-II), dated 10th March, 2003, had itself stated that during the course of search and survey proceedings the officials should abstain from laying undue emphasis on recording statements or obtaining confessions regarding undisclosed income, but focus should be on coll…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…Singh M. Rathod (2005) 148 taxman 35 (Ahd)(Mag) vi. Shree Chand Soni Vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd) 1028 vii. Basant Bansal Vs. ACIT, Jaipur [63 Taxmann.com 199] viii. ACIT Vs. Shri. Johari lal Sodhani [ITA 145/Jp/2013] ix. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. [115 TTJ 173] (Mum) In fact, we find that the CBDT in its Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv-II), dated 10th March, 2003, had itself stated that during the course of search and survey proceedings the officials should abstain from laying undue emphasis on recording statements or obtaining confessions regarding undisclosed income, but focus should be on coll…

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

…Singh M. Rathod (2005) 148 taxman 35 (Ahd)(Mag) vi. Shree Chand Soni Vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd) 1028 vii. Basant Bansal Vs. ACIT, Jaipur [63 Taxmann.com 199] viii. ACIT Vs. Shri. Johari lal Sodhani [ITA 145/Jp/2013] ix. First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. [115 TTJ 173] (Mum) In fact, we find that the CBDT in its Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv-II), dated 10th March, 2003, had itself stated that during the course of search and survey proceedings the officials should abstain from laying undue emphasis on recording statements or obtaining confessions regarding undisclosed income, but focus should be on coll…

Trijal Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 185/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. Acit, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, Bmc Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aakft 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra,Ca P.K.Panda, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 22.6.2020 In Appeal No.0366/2018-19 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm. The Partnership Firm Was Originally Constituted By Partnership Deed Dated 1.11.2015, Wherein, There Were Two Partners Namely; Shri Rajesh Polaki & Sri Malchit Chetan Kumar Patra. The Said Partnership Did Not Do Any Business. The Partnership Was Constituted For The Purpose Of Doing The Business Of Gold Jewellery. The Partnership Was Reconstituted On 1.3.2016, P A G E 1 | 37 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Trijal Enterprises, Hall No.6, Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Fourth Floor, BMC Bhawani Bhubaneswar Coom. Complex, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AAKFT 6687 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra,CA P.K.Panda, ARs Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar date…

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

…ITA No.157/Bang/2020 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath P-22, Golden Enclave Deputy Commissioner of Old Airport Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 017 Central Circle-1(4) Bengaluru PAN NO : AABPL0986F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

M/S. Softtouch Cosmetic (Mktg.) Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 645/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Kiran C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2005-06 Softtouch Cosmetic The ITO, (Mktg) P. Ltd., Ward-1(2), 321, Madhav Hill, Vs Bhavnagar Waghawadi Road, (Respondent) Bhavnagar-364001 PAN: AAFCS7461R (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Kiran C. Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 10-05-2022 Date of pronouncement : 27-07-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissio…

Hareshgiri Pratapgiri Gaushvami, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2051/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.H. Solanki, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 68

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2014-15 Hareshgiri Pratapgiri ITO, Gaushvami At- Kukad, Ward-2(3), Vill: Kukad, Darbar Vs Bhavnagar, Street, Ta- Ghodha, Nakubaug, Near Bhavnagar Jashonath Chowk, PAN: ANEPG7019E Bhavanagr-364001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri S.H. Solanki, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 03-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 28-04-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL,…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…. Rathod (2005) 148 taxman 35 (Ahd)(Mag) (vi). Shree Chand Soni Vs. DCIT (2006) 101 TTJ (Jd) 1028 (vii). Basant Bansal Vs. ACIT, Jaipur [63 Taxmann.com 199] (viii). ACIT Vs. Shri. Johari lal Sodhani [ITA 145/Jp/2013] (ix). First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. [115 TTJ 173](Mum) In fact, we find that the CBDT in its Instruction F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv-II), dated 10th March, 2003, had itself stated that during the course of search and survey proceedings the officials should abstain from laying undue emphasis on recording statements or obtaining confessions regarding undisclosed income, but focus should be on coll…

Tanish Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2118/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct8448C Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1921 & 1928/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Central Circle-2(2), Pratishtha Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACCT…

Tanish Estate Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2117/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct8448C Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1921 & 1928/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Central Circle-2(2), Pratishtha Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACCT…

DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tanish Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1928/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct8448C Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1921 & 1928/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Central Circle-2(2), Pratishtha Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACCT…

DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai vs. Tanish Estate Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue are dismissed and the appeals of assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aacct8448C Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1921 & 1928/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …… (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Central Circle-2(2), Pratishtha Bhavan, 8 Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4Th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri R Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-08-2018

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA Nos. 2117 & 2118 /Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Tanish Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. & …… (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) Tanish Projects Pvt. Ltd. 61/62, Gaya Buildings, 4th Floor, 109, Y.M. Road, Masjid (West), Mumbai-400 003 Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …… (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा िं./PAN No. AACCT…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 892/MUM/2009[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 891/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 890/MUM/2009[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

Shreepati Computer Centre, Muumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 889/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1528/MUM/2009[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1527/MUM/2009[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

ACIT Cen Cir-9, Mumbai vs. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 1481/MUM/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sinde, A.RFor Respondent: Mr. Manju Nathaswami
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 80H

…nt as the revenue despite retraction could not find any corroborative evidence. Similarly in the case of First Global Stockbroking P. Ltd vs ACIT(2008) ITA Nos.889 to 892, 1481, 1527, 1528 & 1402/Mum/09 A.Ys. 00-01 & 03-04 (M/s. Shreepati Computers) Page 17 115 TTJ 173(Mum), it was held that disclosure or admission u/s 132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. If the assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was made under a mistake or misconception of facts, no addition can be made solely on the basis of such admission, Further…

(P) Ltd. v. ACIT (115 TTJ 173) — Cited in 21 Judgments | BharatTax