Society v. UOI

394 ITR 220Supreme Court of India2017#141 most cited

What is Society v. UOI authority for?

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

493

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Society v. UOI · Common Cause (a registered society) 394 ITR 220 · loose papers evidentiary value · uncorroborated documents search · independent corroboration undisclosed income · Section 132(4) statement · Section 292C · Section 34 Evidence Act

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(3)Section 292CSection 132(4A)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 34retraction of statementsection 292cloose papersretracted statementsection 153c(1)statement under section 132(4)protective assessmentsection 131(1a)

Judgments citing Society v. UOI

Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…ble and unplausible. These are the dumb documents and do not fall within the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…ble and unplausible. These are the dumb documents and do not fall within the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarawal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…ble and unplausible. These are the dumb documents and do not fall within the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns a…

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…ble and unplausible. These are the dumb documents and do not fall within the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns a…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Amar Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…ble and unplausible. These are the dumb documents and do not fall within the purview of Section 69A of the Act. The case of the assessee find support from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns a…

Vimalarjun Trust, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Vimalarjun Trust, Vs. Acit, 2/652, Vikram Khand, Gomti Circle-2, Nagar, Lucknow Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pin: 226010 Pan No. Aabtv7815R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advs. & Shri PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…are not substantive evidence; they require independent corroboration. c) CIT v. P. V. Kalyanasundaram (294 ITR 49, SC): Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of a third party's statement/document unless corroborated. C d) Common Cause v. Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC): Documents seized from third parties (e.g., "Sahara Diaries") without further investigation or corroboration cannot be the sole basis for making additions. 5.2 Even assuming the document has some evidentiary value, the following facts emerge: 6 a) The document contains the narration with name "Vimalarjun" written which prima facie establish…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…h containing jottings can be considered as incriminating material or not. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, after following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) and Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [394 ITR 220 (SC)] held that a sheet of paper containing jottings in loose form, not shown to form a part of the books of accounts regularly maintained, does not constitute material evidence and cannot be made the basis of addition. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…h containing jottings can be considered as incriminating material or not. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, after following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) and Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [394 ITR 220 (SC)] held that a sheet of paper containing jottings in loose form, not shown to form a part of the books of accounts regularly maintained, does not constitute material evidence and cannot be made the basis of addition. The SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat vs. Vikas Nangalia, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 972/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…on money cannot be made merely on the basis of write-up on these pages: (i) Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO, [2017] 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj); (ii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah, [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj); (iii) Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs. UOI, [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC); (iv) DCIT vs. Prarthana Construction Pvt. Ltd.,Tax Appeal No. 79 of 2000 (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P.) Ltd., [2017] 397 ITR 246 (Bom). 10. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR. The AO has made the impugned addition based on page Nos.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate vs. Vikas Nangalia, Vesu Surat, Gujarat

In the result, appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 848/SRT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.972/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2020-21 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ""ा"ेप सं /Co No.26/Srt/2024 (A/O Ita No.972/Srt/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Vikas Nangalia Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Surat Room No.508, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (Co-Objector) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.848/Srt/2024& Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Vikas Nangalia बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, D-1112, Canal Road, Surya Green Vs. Surat Room No.508, Majura View, Vesu, Surat-395 007 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Acxpn 1361 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 08/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…on money cannot be made merely on the basis of write-up on these pages: (i) Chintan Jadavbhai Patel vs. ITO, [2017] 79 taxmann.com 302 (Guj); (ii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah, [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj); (iii) Common Cause (A Registered Society) vs. UOI, [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC); (iv) DCIT vs. Prarthana Construction Pvt. Ltd.,Tax Appeal No. 79 of 2000 (Guj) and (v) CIT vs. Lavanya Land (P.) Ltd., [2017] 397 ITR 246 (Bom). 10. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR. The AO has made the impugned addition based on page Nos.…

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Aayakarbhavan, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…business for all the three assessment years. 13. Insofar as, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above a…

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…business for all the three assessment years. 13. Insofar as, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above a…

Karuturi Veera Venkata Ravi Prasad, Kovvur Mandal vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…business for all the three assessment years. 13. Insofar as, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above a…

Akash Kapoor, Haryana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7, New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 766/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69ASection 80T

…corded under Section 132(4) of the Act of 1961 would not conform to the parameters laid down in the said precedent laws. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India, (2017) 394 ITR 220 SC. 4.8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel also relied upon the following order/judgments: (a) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (4) Bangaluru & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma (Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).23406/2024, passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.10.2024). (b) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sun…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Ei Resorts & Clubs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3926/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…th of the personal notings of PKS, without E I Resorts & Clubs Pvt. Ltd. establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)] the celebrated “Birla–Sahara Diaries” case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever. 28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the “dumb document” principle. R…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. E I Resorts and Clubs Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

3213/Mum/2025

ITA 3886/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…th of the personal notings of PKS, without E I Resorts & Clubs Pvt. Ltd. establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)] the celebrated “Birla–Sahara Diaries” case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever. 28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the “dumb document” principle. R…

Ei Beneficiary Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025

ITA 3235/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…tax the assessee on the strength of the personal notings of PDG, without establishing authorship, authenticity, or relevance. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India [(2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)], where the celebrated “Birla-Sahara Diaries" case wherein the Court had categorically held that uncorroborated third-party records found in the course of search have no evidentiary value whatsoever. 28. The learned counsel further cited a line of decisions from the jurisdictional and coordinate benches to reinforce the "dumb document" princ…

Ei Beneficary Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -8(1), Mumbai

3230/Mum/2025 Govind

ITA 3234/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘J SMC’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y 3230/Mum/2025 2015-16 3231/Mum/2025 2021-22 Govind Corporation Vs. DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AADFG2152N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) ITA No. A.Y 3234/Mum/2025 2016-17 3235/Mum/2025 2017-18 3236/Mum/2025 2018-19 EI Beneficary Trust Vs. DCIT, CC-8(1), Mumbai 4th Floor, 139, Seksaria Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort Mumbai – 400 001 PAN/GIR No. AAATE6602L (Appellant) .. (Res…