Rakesh Mahajan v. CIT

214 CTR 218High Court2008#4819 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 366,314 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
Read the full judgment

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. Garrison Polysacks P.Ltd., Baroda vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3096/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…rn. On the basis of language of section 132(4), this addition could rightly be made and has rightly been made. (b) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has also held in its decision dated 24.09.2007 in the case of Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT 642 of 2007 (Taxpert) and 214 CTR 218 that it is well settled that admission constitute best piece of evidence because admission are self bearing statements made by the maker believing it to the based on truth. (c) Kunhambu v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1996] 86 TAXMAN 477 (KER.) Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment years 1980- 81 and 1981-82 - D…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ramprastha Greens (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3239/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR)For Respondent: S/ Shri Ved Jain, Rajesh Jain, CAs
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 40A

…g decisions - (A) Kantilal C.Shah Vs ACIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad (ITAT Ahd. Ç Bench), (B) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & Ors. (AIR 1960 100 SC), (C) T.S. Kamarasamy vs ACIT (65 ITD 189) (ITAT Mad.), (D) Rakesh Mahajan Vs. CIT 214 CTR 218 (P&H) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessees have claimed that the statement of Sh. Balwant Singh u/s 132(4) of the Income tax Act was not voluntary and was recorded under coercion, threat and compulsion. He submitted that this allegation is only an afterthought and an attempt to wriggle out of the situation. It is I.T.A. 3238, 3239, 3240,…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ramprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3238/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR)For Respondent: S/ Shri Ved Jain, Rajesh Jain, CAs
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 40A

…g decisions - (A) Kantilal C.Shah Vs ACIT Circle-3, Ahmedabad (ITAT Ahd. Ç Bench), (B) Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi & Ors. (AIR 1960 100 SC), (C) T.S. Kamarasamy vs ACIT (65 ITD 189) (ITAT Mad.), (D) Rakesh Mahajan Vs. CIT 214 CTR 218 (P&H) 9. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessees have claimed that the statement of Sh. Balwant Singh u/s 132(4) of the Income tax Act was not voluntary and was recorded under coercion, threat and compulsion. He submitted that this allegation is only an afterthought and an attempt to wriggle out of the situation. It is I.T.A. 3238, 3239, 3240,…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Subhash Sharma, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1573/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Kartar Singh, ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: “G” New Delhi BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 1573/Del/2012 AY : - 2007-08 ACIT vs. Subhash Sharma Central Circle-25, B-206 & 207, Room No. 331, Ashok Nagar, ARA Centre, Ghaziabad Jhandewalan Extn. (PAN ABIPSO489A) New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Kartar Singh, ACIT DR Respondent by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA Date of Hearing : 9.9.2015 Date of pronouncement : .10.2015 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA JUDICIAL MEMBER This Department’s appeal is filed ag…