How many judgments cite Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT (168 ITR 375), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132(4), Section 131, Section 147, Section 148, Section 68.

Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

168 ITR 375High Court1987#2740 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 131 Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statement statement under section 132(4)retracted statement section 158bb mli on-money section 132(4a)block period section 131(1a)dumb documents section 132(4)section 69b

Judgments citing Rameshchandra & Co. v. CIT

DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai vs. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 3705/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Vs M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, 1St Floor, Tax, Central Circle-22, Central Range-5, Kapadia Building No. 2, Mumbai (Appellant) 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 (Respondent) Pan : Aabcc7451M : M/S. Chains Corner Jewellery Vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income- (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shop No. 9, Tax, Central Circle-22, 1St Floor, Kapadia Building Mumbai (Respondent) No. 2, 31/33, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002 Pan : Aabcc7451M (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…The Apex Court in C. Sampat Kumar vs. Enforcement Office AIR 1998 SC 16 had observed that when a person to whom summon is issued, gives his statement in writing and signs it, such a statement is voluntary. In the of case of Rameshchandra & Co. vs. CIT (1987) 168 ITR 375(Bom) it was held that the assessee could have not grievance if the taxing authority taxes him in accordance with the voluntary statement under s. 132(4). In the case of the appellant it is not as though his statement was wrongly recorded or that he made it under a mistaken belief of fact or law. If it were so, he ought to have been made an applic…

M/S Chains Corner Jewellery (I) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC - 22, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal for Asst

ITA 2558/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod K. Parida &For Respondent: Shri Prakash Ojha, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

Dharam Pal Dhingra Prop. Dharampal Dhingra Electroncs vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed but no order as to

ITA/36/2008HC Delhi28 May 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

Section 132Section 260

…iry and probe into the affairs by the AO and the matter was treated as concluded. Generally, an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party may rely upon though not conclusive. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments reported in 168 ITR 375 (Bom.), 122 ITR 926 (All.), 210 ITR 682 (M.P.) and 219 ITR 235 (Ker.). Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber Work’s Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 63 (Del) and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahavir Metal Works Vs. CIT, 92 ITR 513 have held that where an assessee himself voluntarily concedes that a particular item repr…