Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT

340 ITR 497High Court2012#11568 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 153ASection 69ASection 69CSection 142(1)Section 142(2A)Section 143(2)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 56(2)(vii)(c)section 24asection 153a(b)section 245c(1)section 245d(1)section 17(2)settlement applicationsection 24(b)house property incomeannual valuedemergersection 158bb

Judgments citing Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ation of fact. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT ((2012) 340 ITR 497) has got no application to the case on hand as in the abovesaid case, the Court did find corroborative evidence to substantiate along with the presumption created under Section 132(4- A) of the Act. After all the presumption under the abovesaid provision is rebuttable in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any substantial questions of law involve…

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ation of fact. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT ((2012) 340 ITR 497) has got no application to the case on hand as in the abovesaid case, the Court did find corroborative evidence to substantiate along with the presumption created under Section 132(4- A) of the Act. After all the presumption under the abovesaid provision is rebuttable in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any substantial questions of law involve…

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ation of fact. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT ((2012) 340 ITR 497) has got no application to the case on hand as in the abovesaid case, the Court did find corroborative evidence to substantiate along with the presumption created under Section 132(4- A) of the Act. After all the presumption under the abovesaid provision is rebuttable in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any substantial questions of law involve…

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ation of fact. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT ((2012) 340 ITR 497) has got no application to the case on hand as in the abovesaid case, the Court did find corroborative evidence to substantiate along with the presumption created under Section 132(4- A) of the Act. After all the presumption under the abovesaid provision is rebuttable in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any substantial questions of law involve…

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ation of fact. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT ((2012) 340 ITR 497) has got no application to the case on hand as in the abovesaid case, the Court did find corroborative evidence to substantiate along with the presumption created under Section 132(4- A) of the Act. After all the presumption under the abovesaid provision is rebuttable in nature. Accordingly, we do not find any substantial questions of law involve…

NARESH BALYAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3448/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Vimal Kumar[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Naresh Balyan Vs Acit 125-A, Shyam Park Central Circle-16 Nawada, Uttam Nagar Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110059 Delhi Pan-Adqpb8836L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jasmeet Singh, Adv. & Shri Pranav Menon, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Baljeet Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.10.2024 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 292CSection 69ASection 69C

…s the assessee has successfully disproved the entries made in the loose sheets. To buttress her contentions the Ld.CIT DR referred to the following judgments; (a) CIT vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala [2011] 331 ITR 510 (Delhi); (b) CIT vs Ambika Appalam Depot [2012] 340 ITR 497 (Madras); and (c) Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs CIT(Appeals), Ranchi [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) 10.3 The Ld.CIT DR submitted that the presumptions raised under s. 132(4A) of the Act on seizure of such loose sheets is automatic and the onus squarely lies on the assessee to rebut that presumption by offering plausible explanation, if any. A m…

PRITHVEE PROPMART PVT LTD,NOIDA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7408/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sidhant Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

…ent. It is a settled principal of law u/s 292 of the Act that the content of impounded document found are deemed to be true unless rebutted with cogent evidences. The fining given by Hon’ble High Court Madras in the case of CIT vs. Ambika Appalam Depot (2012) 340 ITR 497 /73 DTR 112 (Mad.)(HC) is squarely applicable in the present case wherein it is held by the Court that addition on the basis of incriminating document is perfectly justified. Therefore addition made by AO is confirmed and grounds of appeal of the appellant are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the gro…

S.SINGHAL & CO.,BHIWADI vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

ITA 637/JPR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 858/JP/2013 & 637/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2004-05 cuke M/s S. Singhal & Co. The ACIT, Vs. E-127, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Central Circle, Distt.- Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFFS 2873 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls…

S.SINGHAL & CO.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

ITA 858/JPR/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) a

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 858/JP/2013 & 637/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2004-05 cuke M/s S. Singhal & Co. The ACIT, Vs. E-127, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Central Circle, Distt.- Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFFS 2873 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls…

Revenue in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT (340 ITR 497) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax