How many judgments cite Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT?

103 judgments on BharatTax cite Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT (301 ITR 134), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 68, Section 132(4A), Section 69, Section 144.

Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT

301 ITR 134High Court2008#1057 most cited

What is Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT authority for?

No addition to income can be made based solely on documents found from a third party without examining that third party and establishing a clear link between the documents' contents and the assessee.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT · 301 ITR 134 · third party documents · addition to income · examination of third party · linking evidence · search assessment · Section 153A · Section 68 · Section 69 · Section 69A · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 68 Section 132(4A)Section 69 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shares section 44af jewellery found during search onus of proof section 269t section 269s section 271e section 150 section 158bb unexplained jewellery section 132(4a)section 269ss

Judgments citing Prakash Chand Nahata v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle-9, Mumbai vs. M/S. Shreepati Computer Centre, Mumbai

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

ITA 1402/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

…tion to make representation on their own behalf or to appear at a hearing or enquiry and effectively prepare their own case and to answer the case, if any, they have to meet. It may also be staled here that in a recent case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs CIT(2008) 301 ITR 134(MP), the assessment order itself was treated as invalid where the assessment was based on the statement of a third party who also retracted his statement and the assessee was not allowed opportunity to cross examine this third party. It was held that though the AO had powers for issuing summons, despite request of the assessee, he did not summon…

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. P R Syndicate, Mumbai

ITA 1895/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1895/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-14(3)(2) M/S. P.R. Syndicate 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 492, Chandra Chowk, M.J. Market Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point Pan:Aaffp 9056 L Mumbai-400 021. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Naveen Gupta-Dr Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश देश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त देश देश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-25 Mumbai The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee Firm-Engaged In The Business Of Selling Of Cloth Filed Return Of Income On 31.10.2006, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.50,960/-. The Assessment Was Made U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 15.12.2010 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.88.55 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं पवन "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1895/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2006-07 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Officer-14(3)(2) M/s. P.R. Syndicate 6th Floor, Earnest House, 492, Chandra Chowk, M.J. Market Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point PAN:AAFFP 9…

R. Kundan & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6143/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 5Section 6Section 6(1)(c)Section 9

…allegations are made. The ratio laid down in following decisions supports the case of the assessee and also our view. i. Rajesh Kumar vs DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 91 (SC) ii. CIT vs Dhrampal Premchand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del.) iii. PrakashChand Nahata vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) iv. CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 345 (Del.) 4.4. The crux of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Courts and also by Hon’ble Apex Court are that the assessment proceedings are part of judicial process, thus, attract principle of natural justice and any evidence which is put forth against the assessee has to be confronted to t…