Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

168 ITR 375High Court1987#2774 most cited

What is Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income-tax Act during a search operation carries significant evidentiary value, and its subsequent retraction is only valid if supported by cogent reasons and evidence of coercion or falsehood.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT · Section 132(4) · retraction of statement · statement during search · evidentiary value of statement · coercion · validity of retracted statement · assessment procedure · 168 ITR 375 · 35 Taxmann.com 153

Also reported as

35 Taxmann.com 153

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementstatement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 158bbmlion-moneysection 132(4a)block periodsection 131(1a)dumb documentssection 132(4)section 69b

Judgments citing Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

RAGHVENDER SHANKAR FINANCE & INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMTED ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

SHANKAR RADHEY FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 23(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

SINGHAL FASTNERS CO. P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 PAN-AAACS1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/s Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer, and Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 AG-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 PAN-AABCS0968H Appellant Res…

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ame cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bachittar Singh (supra). Professional Automotives Private Limited vs. ACIT Rameshchandra& Co. v. CIT[1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.) O. Abdul Razak (supra)." (Emphasis Supplied) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29-09-2010] "15. Having crystalize…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 120/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot\nbe treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the\nvarious High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bochittar Singh (supra),\nRameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 1987 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. SC.\nGupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537\n(Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\n\"6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted,\nthe Assessing Officer should have…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 118/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot\nbe treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the\nvarious High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bochittar Singh (supra),\nRameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 1987 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. SC.\nGupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537\n(Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\n\"6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted,\nthe Assessing Officer should have…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 116/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot\nbe treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the\nvarious High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bochittar Singh (supra),\nRameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 1987 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. SC.\nGupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537\n(Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\n\"6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted,\nthe Assessing Officer should have…

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 115/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 153A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot\nbe treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the\nvarious High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bochittar Singh (supra),\nRameshchandra & Co. v. CIT 1987 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. SC.\nGupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537\n(Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra).\"\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nDr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252\n(Allahabad)\n\"6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted,\nthe Assessing Officer should have…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. JAY CHEMICALS IDNDUSTRIES LTD, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1916/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1740 & 1916/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year. 2014-15 Jay Chemical Industries The Dy.CIT, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Jay House, Near Ahmedabad Panchvati Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AAACJ7628J The Dy.CIT, Vs Jay Chemical Circle-2(1)(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad Jay House, Near Panchvati Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AAACJ7628J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shr…

JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1740/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT And Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1740 & 1916/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year. 2014-15 Jay Chemical Industries The Dy.CIT, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle-2(1)(1), Jay House, Near Ahmedabad Panchvati Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AAACJ7628J The Dy.CIT, Vs Jay Chemical Circle-2(1)(1), Industries Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad Jay House, Near Panchvati Circle, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380006 Gujarat PAN: AAACJ7628J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri Nimesh Vayawala, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shr…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. J VIVEK, THIRUVARUR

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

ITA 1778/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1778/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. J. Vivek, Income Tax, No. 32/1, Mannai Nagar, Mannargudi, Central Circle 2(4), Thiruvarur 614 001. Chennai. [Pan:Aqqpv7997M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Ms. S. Jecintha, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 68Section 69A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bachittar Singh (supra), Ramesh chandra & Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra) 4.9 In the present case, the statement of Shri Gubendran was recorded only on 19.02.2019 wherein he has stated that he received Rs.1.5 crores only. This statement was recorded nearly after 15 months from the date of search i…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA and Shri R.K. Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR (Thru” V.H.)
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 69A

…lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna ( supra), Bachittar Singh (supra), Rameshchandra & Co. v. C/T[1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta (supra), C/Tv, Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), O. Abdul Razak (supra)" (Emphasis Supplied) In. Manmohansingh Vig v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), [2006] 6 SOT 18 (Mum), the ITAT while coming to a conclusion as to the admissibility of a retraction made on an affidavit by the ass…

KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED(PREVIOUSLY KUNOWN AS KUL URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD),PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), PUNE

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

ITA 539/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

…rity of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sterling Machine Tools vs. CIT 123 ITR 181 (All.), Madras High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar vs. CIT 108 ITR 73 (Mad) and that of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT 168 ITR 375 (Bom.). In view of the above the present appeal is rejected at its threshold. 5 5.3 As the appeal has been rejected decision on individual grounds of appeal is not required.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that merely because the AR of th…

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…by lodging a complaint with higher officials, the same cannot be treated as retracted. This position laid down in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in Lekh Raj Dhunna (supra), Bachittar Singh (supraj. Rameshchandra d Co. v. C[1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom). Dr Sc Gupta (supra), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/20111 332 ITR 537 (Ker.). O. Abdul Razak (supra)." (Emphasis Supplied) Dr. S.C. Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2001] 118 Taxman 252 (Allahabad) "6. As regards the assessee's contention that the statement having been retracted, the Assessing Officer should have independent…

SHRI MUFIZ BURHAMUDDIN SIDDIQUI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground No. 6 of the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/AHD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40Section 41Section 68

…re the A.O. hence the appellant doesn 't have any right to make appeal against the agreed additions/disallowances. 3.4.1. In this regard the reliance is also placed in the case of Mahesh B. Shah Vs. CIT (Ker) 238 ITR 130 and Ramesh Chandra & Co. Vs. CIT (Bom) 168 ITR 375 wherein it has been held that once the appellant has agreed for some addition before the A. O. then the appellant did not have any right to file the appeal against such agreed addition unless the appellant proves that the addition was made under some threat or coercion. In the instant case there is nothing on record to say that the agreement for…

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1123/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…terated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Punj. & Har.), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj. & Har.), Rameshchandra & Co., vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/[2013] 350 ITR 71 (Ker.).” Similarly, therefore, these grounds of appeal filed by the appellant- assessee stands dismissed. 13. Howeve…

SHRI ASHOK BHAWARLAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1122/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…terated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT vs. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Punj. & Har.), Bachittar Singh vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj. & Har.), Rameshchandra & Co., vs. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom.), Dr. S.C. Gupta vs. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All.), CIT vs. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/[2013] 350 ITR 71 (Ker.).” Similarly, therefore, these grounds of appeal filed by the appellant- assessee stands dismissed. 13. Howeve…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 133/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 292BSection 43C

…722), Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ishwain Mewalal Vs CIT (169 ITR 587) relying the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100, Bombay High Court in the case of Sri Ramesh Chandra and Co. Vs. CIT (1987)(168 ITR 375) and decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kunhambu & Sons Vs. CIT(1996) 219 ITR 235 (Ker). (ii) the disclosure cannot be retracted after a gap of 1 year & 10 months, the view finds support from the decision of Honourable ITAT "A" Bench, Banglore in the case of carpenters Classic (EXIM) Vs. DCIT reported in 108 TTJ 760 & Honourable…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT vs. KUSH CORPORATION, SURAT

In the result, grounds of cross objection raised by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 357/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16)

Section 133ASection 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No. 93 & 94/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) (Physical hearing) A.C.I.T., Kush Corporation, Central Circle-1, Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. Vs. Surat. No. 30, Block No. 111, Palanpor, Surat. PAN No. AALFK 7948 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee C.O. No. 01/Srt/2023 (Arising out of ITA No. 357/Srt /2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kush Corporation, A.C.I.T., Crystal Heights, T.P. No. 9, F.P. No.…

MR. ANIL KANTILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-51, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse vide

ITA 228/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalita Nos.227 & 228/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2018-19 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69B

…was reiterated in catena of decisions by the various High Courts in the case of CIT v Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554/344 ITR 352 (Pun). & Har), Bachittar Singh v. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 400 (Punj & Har), Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT [1987] 35 Taxman 153/168 ITR 375 (Bom), Dr. S.C. Gupta v. CIT [2001] 118 Taxman 252/248 ITR 782 (All), CIT v. Hotel Meriya [2010] 195 Taxman 459/12011] 332 ITR 537 (Ker.), CIT v. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48/207 Taxman 193 (Mag)/2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker.), 28. In the present case, on careful examination of the so called retractment statements filed in the form of affidav…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3