Rice Mills v. ACIT (Chd.)

67 TTJ 838Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#16040 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

dumb documentssection 132(4a)loose papersdocuments seizedsection 132(4)genuineness of the transactionundisclosed incomesearch and seizuresection 132prescribedcompanysection 14

Judgments citing Rice Mills v. ACIT (Chd.)

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…l.)P R Patel vs DCIT ( 73 TTJ 262 (Mum) 3. Documents seized during search not being as to whether item were payments or receipts or some other calculations, so no additions could be made on the basis of such a dumb document.Jagdamba Rice Mills V/s ACIT (Chd.) 67 TTJ 838 4. Since the loose papers did not indicate name of assessee, from list of persons given in loose papers it could not be inferred that either any loan or any advance was given to or received from those persons, and since total amount on those loose sheets indicated a very small amount, those loose papers alone would have to be considered as dumb pa…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…l.)P R Patel vs DCIT ( 73 TTJ 262 (Mum) 3. Documents seized during search not being as to whether item were payments or receipts or some other calculations, so no additions could be made on the basis of such a dumb document.Jagdamba Rice Mills V/s ACIT (Chd.) 67 TTJ 838 4. Since the loose papers did not indicate name of assessee, from list of persons given in loose papers it could not be inferred that either any loan or any advance was given to or received from those persons, and since total amount on those loose sheets indicated a very small amount, those loose papers alone would have to be considered as dumb pa…

Vijay Solvex Ltd, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, the writ petition of Dr

ITA 357/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153A

…(P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ 247 (All.) (Trib.) Burden is on the revenue to establish that figures appearing in the loose papers found in search constituted undisclosed income of the assessee and taxable. 9 Vijay Solvex Ltd vs. DCIT Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ 838 (Chd.) (Trib.) Documents seized during search not being clear as to whether items were payments or receipts or some other calculations, so no additions could be made on the basis of such dumb documents. Ashwani Kumar Vs. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (Trib.) To make addition on the basis of dumb documents it is duty of the revenue to collect necessary ev…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Shree Dhain Auto Transport Corpn., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…essing Officer that the assessee had in fact received any 'on-money'. The addition as made by the Assessing Officer being based on mere presumptions and assumptions and withoutany corroborative evidence, could not be sustained." • Jagdamba Rice Mills vs, ACIT 67 TTJ 838 (Chd) wherein it was held that addition could not be made on the basis of seized material found during the course of search where the content of the documents are not clear. N. K. Malhan vs. DCIT 91 TTJ 938 (Delhi) wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document in absence of any corroborative material. • ACIT vs. Sa…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…Jam Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del): 14 DTC 681 Documents seized during search not being clear as to whether items were payments or receipts or some other calculation, so no addition could be made on the basis of such a dumb documents. Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ 838 (Chd.) The word "Document" u/s 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 means any matter written expressed or described upon substance by means of letters, figures etc. intended to be used for recording that matter. Therefore, if the piece of paper seized during search is considered in light of the definition of the word "document" as given in the Indi…

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 1182/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Acit, M-65, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Central Circle-12, Nagar, Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aexpa2040R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…8 (Raj.) " Mahaan Foods Ltd. Vs DCIT (2010) 123 ITD 590 (Del. C Bench) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2008) 5 DTR (Jab. Trib.) 202 " Rakesh Goyal Vs ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del.) " N. K. Malhan Vs DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 938 (Del.) " Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs ACIT (2000) 67 TTJ 838 (Chd.) " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1992) 42 TTJ 644 (Del.) 16 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal " ACIT Vs Ashok Kumar Vig. (2007) 106 TTJ 422 (Ranchi) " Chander Mohan Mehta Vs ACIT (Inv.) (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) " M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 2000 (Chennai) " Hissaria Bros Vs ACIT 22 Taxworld 684 (ITAT Jaipur) " ITO Vs Mannalal 22 Taxworld 55…

Rice Mills v. ACIT (Chd.) (67 TTJ 838) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax