Rakesh Mahajan v. CIT

214 CTR 218High Court2008#4827 most cited

What is Rakesh Mahajan v. CIT authority for?

Admissions constitute the best evidence because they are self-harming statements made by the maker believing them to be true.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rakesh Mahajan v. CIT · 214 CTR 218 · admission · best evidence · retraction of statement · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69ASection 115BBESection 139(1)Section 142ASection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 38retraction of statementsection 142asection 131(1a)section 69bretracted statementsource of sourcesection 132(4a)section 292crejection of books of accountblock periodsection 127

Judgments citing Rakesh Mahajan v. CIT

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sancheti (150 Taxmann.com 227). Unless the admission is not successfully withdrawn, it is the best evidence. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rakesh Mahajan (214 CTR 218), it was held that the admission constitute best evidence. The other arguments as raised by the assessee were also rejected and the addition of Rs.108 Lacs was confirmed. 4.19 On the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D, it was held that the approval was accorded after due examination of relevant record and verification by the range head. Furthe…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sancheti (150 Taxmann.com 227). Unless the admission is not successfully withdrawn, it is the best evidence. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rakesh Mahajan (214 CTR 218), it was held that the admission constitute best evidence. The other arguments as raised by the assessee were also rejected and the addition of Rs.108 Lacs was confirmed. 4.19 On the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D, it was held that the approval was accorded after due examination of relevant record and verification by the range head. Furthe…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sancheti (150 Taxmann.com 227). Unless the admission is not successfully withdrawn, it is the best evidence. In terms of decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rakesh Mahajan (214 CTR 218), it was held that the admission constitute best evidence. The other arguments as raised by the assessee were also rejected and the addition of Rs.108 Lacs was confirmed. 4.19 On the issue of mechanical approval u/s 153D, it was held that the approval was accorded after due examination of relevant record and verification by the range head. Furthe…

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…ion should be framed. The relevant extract is given hereunder:- 9 Jagdish Kumar Arora x x x x The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has also held in its decision dated 24/09/2007 in the case of Rakesh Mahajan Vs. CIT cited at 642 of 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 that "It is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one’s own interest unless such a statement is true.” In the case of Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 40…

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 143Section 147

…uthorities is binding on him despite retraction. In this regard decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court also supports the above view as it has also held in its decision dated 24.9.2008 in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. CII cited at 642 of 2007(Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 that "it is well settled that admissions 6 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth it is well knows that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true. In additio…

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 78/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 10(38)Section 56

…nfession or oath was not voluntarily tendered or was under coercion or duress. In the present case, no such evidence has been produced or even shown to have existed. The decision' of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Mahajan Vs. CIT (214 CTR 218) is also pertinent wherein it was held that "it is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true". The retraction mad…

SARITHA SHIVAYYAGARI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/HYD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Saritha Shivayyagari Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad. Ward 11(3) Pan:Bkqps0479M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2009-10. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.63,75,185/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Ita 98/Hyd/2020

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…of Indian Evidence Act. It is not retraction from the commitment but it is deviation and avoidance. of evidence gathered by the department. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT cited at 214 CTR 218 wherein it has been held that - "It is well settled that admissions constitute best price of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth. It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true." Section 110 of the Evidence Ac…

KOHINOOR CRAFTS,MORADABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MORADABAD

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

ITA 9556/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69C

…C 861; (v) B. Kishore Kumar vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 215; (vi) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274, 351 ITR 143 (Del); (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 9; (viii) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT, 75 Taxmann.com 308; (ix) Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT, 214 CTR 218; (x) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172; (xi) Ravi Mathur & Others (DB Appeal No.67/2002 & Others – Rajasthan High Court); (xii) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setai (ITA 935/2016 dated 01.05.2017); (xiii) Kanti Lal Parbhu Das Patel vs. DCIT (2005) 93 ITD 117 (Indore); (xiv) Dr. SC Gupta vs. CIT (2001) ITR 782 (All); (xv) Kantilal C. Shah vs.…

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

ITA 953/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…ss examine the witness does not constitute any violation of natural justice. Thus, the act under which the judgment was passed and the question being addressed by the court were distinctly different from the case of the assessee 2. Rakesh Mahajan V CIT (2008) 214 CTR 218 judgment date 24.09.07. In this case the statement was given in contemplation of death and it was held by the court that a person expecting to die will have no fear and will not give a false statement. Further a opportunity was provided to the person to negate the contents which he failed to negate. Thus the facts of that case are also not having…

ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL vs. AISECT LTD. , BHOPAL

ITA 952/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…ss examine the witness does not constitute any violation of natural justice. Thus, the act under which the judgment was passed and the question being addressed by the court were distinctly different from the case of the assessee 2. Rakesh Mahajan V CIT (2008) 214 CTR 218 judgment date 24.09.07. In this case the statement was given in contemplation of death and it was held by the court that a person expecting to die will have no fear and will not give a false statement. Further a opportunity was provided to the person to negate the contents which he failed to negate. Thus the facts of that case are also not having…

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 946/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…ss examine the witness does not constitute any violation of natural justice. Thus, the act under which the judgment was passed and the question being addressed by the court were distinctly different from the case of the assessee 2. Rakesh Mahajan V CIT (2008) 214 CTR 218 judgment date 24.09.07. In this case the statement was given in contemplation of death and it was held by the court that a person expecting to die will have no fear and will not give a false statement. Further a opportunity was provided to the person to negate the contents which he failed to negate. Thus the facts of that case are also not having…

AISECT LTD. ,BHOPAL vs. ACIT RANGE 1(1), BHOPAL

ITA 945/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…ss examine the witness does not constitute any violation of natural justice. Thus, the act under which the judgment was passed and the question being addressed by the court were distinctly different from the case of the assessee 2. Rakesh Mahajan V CIT (2008) 214 CTR 218 judgment date 24.09.07. In this case the statement was given in contemplation of death and it was held by the court that a person expecting to die will have no fear and will not give a false statement. Further a opportunity was provided to the person to negate the contents which he failed to negate. Thus the facts of that case are also not having…

THE A C I T CENTRAL-II, BHOPAL vs. S V INFRA DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 657/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…er dose not reveals the true and correct picture of undisclosed income. Such a statement carries no weight in the eyes of law. The A.O. has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT vs Rakesh Mahajan 214 CTR 218 (2007). I have carefully gone through the said decision, I am of the considered opinion that the facts in the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the said decision of the Hon'ble punjab and Haryana High Court in as much as in the instant case, no disproportionate asset has been brought on record." I find that the case of t…

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

KOTHAKOTA RAMA RAO,RAYAGADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./ITA No.132/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P AND आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 & ITA No.386/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada PAN No. : AEPPK 1600 P (अऩीऱाथ…

RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, we affirm the findings of the lower authorities in this regard

ITA 566/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)

…f law:- • ACIT vs. Hukum Chand & Ors. (2010) 337 ITR 238 (Chhatisgarh) • Rajmal Nawal vs. CIT & Anr. (2003) 183 CTR 144 (Raj.) • Hotel Kiran vs. ACIT (2002) 77 TTJ 87 (Pune) • V. Kubhambu & Sons vs. CIT (1986) 131 CTR 396 (Ker) • Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT (2008) 214 CTR 218 (P & H) Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the finding of the AO making addition of Rs. 16692175/- cannot be faulted. The addition is made by the AO is accordingly confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed. “ 15. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Firstly, we refer to the statemen…

M.S, ULTIMATE BUILDERS,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT-2, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 134/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17

…ad observed that the addition can be made solely on the basis of the statement and in this regards have drawn support from section 17 & section 110 of the Evidence Act 1872. He also placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the case of Rakesh Mahajan v CIT 214 CTR 218 as well as other decisions reported in DCIT v Bhogilal Moolchand 96 ITD 344 and Carpenters Classic p ltd v DCIT 108 ITD 142. In this regards it may be mentioned that the reliance of the AO on section 110 & 17 of the Evidence Act 1872 are totally misplaced and out of context. Ultimate Builders Section 17 relates to any admission in a statement wh…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. RAJIV GULATI, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 2726/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ficials are not Police Officers and the confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. Reliance is also place on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. ClT cited at 6420f 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 wherein it has been held that" It is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true." Further reliance is placed on the…

MR RAJIV GULATI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 1762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…ficials are not Police Officers and the confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner. Reliance is also place on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. ClT cited at 6420f 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 wherein it has been held that" It is well settled that admissions constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self-harming statements made by the maker believing it to be based on truth It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true." Further reliance is placed on the…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2