Similarly, in M Narayan & Bros. v. ACIT

243 CTR 588Reported decision#23911 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 44AB

Judgments citing Similarly, in M Narayan & Bros. v. ACIT

ACIT Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur vs. R.B.S.D. and F.N. Das (Export Firm), Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

…ment recorded from the appellant was subsequently retracted and rebutted Furthermore, the statement was not relatable to any seized material. Therefore, even the statement could not be the basis for making any addition Similarly, in M Narayan & Bros. v. ACIT (243 CTR 588) the Hon'ble Madras High Court considered the circular issued by CBDT dated 10th March 2003 and held that when the appellant had explained his statement as not correct in the context of the materials produced, the Tribunal would not be justified in its conclusion that the statement made would clothe the assessment with legality. Considering facts…

DCIT-CC-1(3), Nagpur vs. R.B.S.D. and F.N. Das(Export Firm), Vizianagram

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/NAG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 69C

…or the revenue to show that what was disclosed in the sale deed is not the correct sale consideration. In this case the revenue could not bring on record any material to show that the appellant had paid on money of Rs. 23,00,000/-.” M Narayan & Bros. v. ACIT (243 CTR 588)(Mad HC) In this case Madras High Court has considered the circular issued by CBDT dated 10th March 2003 wherein they have categorically stated that “undue emphasis should not be placed on the recorded statement. While the statement rendered at the time of search u/s 132(4) may be used in evidence in any proceeding, yet, that by itself, does not…

M.S, Ultimate Builders, Bhopal vs. The ACIT-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 134/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15 M/S. Ultimate Builders, Acit, Central-Ii, G-1, Kamdhenu Tower, E- Vs. Bhopal 2/22, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aacfu8239M

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 17

…t is thus submitted that the additions upheld may please be deleted. (ii) Honble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co V CIT (2013), 257 CTR 0159. (iii) The Madras High Court in the case of M.Narayanan & Bros V ACIT reported at (2011), 243 CTR 588. (iv) In the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.). (v) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 281 CTR 85 (Delhi) (vi) PCIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia 395 ITR 296 (Delhi) (vii) PCIT vs. Soumya Construction 387 ITR 529 (Guj.) (viii) CIT vs. Deepak Agrawal 251 Taxmann Pg.22 (Bom.) (ix) PCIT vs. Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) (x) The Hon’ble…

Similarly, in M Narayan & Bros. v. ACIT (243 CTR 588) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax