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 367,154 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

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

ITA 680/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…themselves to charge any person with liability. He also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) [1998] 3 SCC 410 and Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person cannot be treated as admissible evidence qua such third person. The Ld. AR further showed us that, even Shri Anbu, from whose possession these notings were found had denied any cash transactions with the assessee, in his sta…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…upreme Court in the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and Common Cause (A Registered Soc Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of iety) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries held that loose sheets or diaries India (394 ITR 220) found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person cannot be treated as…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…upreme Court in the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and Common Cause (A Registered Soc Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of iety) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries held that loose sheets or diaries India (394 ITR 220) found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person cannot be treated as…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…upreme Court in the cases of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and Common Cause (A Registered Soc Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of iety) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) wherein it was held that loose sheets or diaries held that loose sheets or diaries India (394 ITR 220) found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person found in third party premises containing mention of names of third person cannot be treated as…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 264/NAG/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (Mrs 72/91 and 73/91). 9.7. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), wherein searches were conducted on the Birla and Sahara Group of Companies and incriminating material in form of random sheets and loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives etc. were found, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act. Relevant extrac…

Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Centra Circle 2(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 238/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) 801,8Th Floor & 800 Sq.Ft Space On 8Th Floor Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Royal Park, Ramdaspeth Aayakar Bhavan Nagpur - 440012 Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Nagpur – 440002 Pan – Abdpc0828J (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) V. Vishwas Sudhakar Chaknalwar 801,8Th Floor & 800 Sq.Ft Space On 8Th Floor Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Royal Park, Ramdaspeth Aayakar Bhavan Nagpur – 440012 Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Nagpur – 440001 Pan – Abdpc0828J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

…R 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are "books" within the meaning of section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (Mrs 72/91 and 73/91).' 9.7. Also, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), wherein searches were conducted on the Birla and Sahara Group of Companies and incriminating material in form of random sheets and loose papers, computer prints, hard disk, pen drives etc. were found, held that noting on loose sheet/diary does carry any evidentiary value under the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act. Relevant extrac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…ged receipt made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting and scribbling on loose sheets made by some person have no evidentiary value and is unsustainable and bad in law. 196. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the tran…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…ged receipt made simply on the basis of uncorroborated noting and scribbling on loose sheets made by some person have no evidentiary value and is unsustainable and bad in law. 196. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) observed with regard to evidentiary value that entries in books of account are not by themselves sufficient to charge any person with liability, the reason being that a man cannot be allowed to make evidence for himself by what he chooses to write in his own books behind the back of the parties. There must be independent evidence of the tran…

ACIT Circle 1 & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2330/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 34

…dition. The relevant finding of the order of the ITAT cited supra is extracted as under: “11.29 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A registered Society) Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 dated 2.7.2018 [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it observed that “the entries in the loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and has no evidentiary value u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, refused to give nod to investigate against the Sahara and Birla Groups in the alleged…

ACIT Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. M/S Rohan Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2329/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT (DR)
Section 34

…dition. The relevant finding of the order of the ITAT cited supra is extracted as under: “11.29 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A registered Society) Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 dated 2.7.2018 [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it observed that “the entries in the loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and has no evidentiary value u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, refused to give nod to investigate against the Sahara and Birla Groups in the alleged…

M/S. Global Star Indmetal Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 52/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 147

…evelopers Vs DCIT ITA 453/Vizag/2012. • P. Venkateshwar Rao Vs DCIT ITA 25/825/Vizag/2012. 11.29 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A registered Society) Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 dated 2.7.2018 [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it observed that "the entries in the loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and has no evidentiary value u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, refused to give nod to investigate against the Sahara and Birla Groups in the alleged…

M/S. Global Star Indmetal Private Limited, Udupi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

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

ITA 51/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahushri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 147

…evelopers Vs DCIT ITA 453/Vizag/2012. • P. Venkateshwar Rao Vs DCIT ITA 25/825/Vizag/2012. 11.29 Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A registered Society) Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No.505 of 2015 dated 2.7.2018 [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC) wherein it observed that "the entries in the loose papers/sheets are not "books of accounts" and has no evidentiary value u/s 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the writ petition filed by Common Cause, a registered society, refused to give nod to investigate against the Sahara and Birla Groups in the alleged…

Shyamsunder Bang, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circel 8, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1887/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhshyam Sunder Bang Vs. Acit M-6, Greater Kailsah Part Central Circle 8 2, New Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Pan: Aafpb2321L Extension, New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv & Ms. Tanya, Adv Revenue By Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 27/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025 Order

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 154Section 69B

…te Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. LataMangeshkar 97 ITD 53 held that unsigned, unverified papers cannot form the basis for addition u/s 69B of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220(S.C) also held that loose papers cannot be considered as 6 Shyamsunder Bang Vs. ACIT admissible evidence for making an addition unless backed by independent corroborative material. 9. In the present case, the loose sheet has been recovered from the searched person i.e. Gurvinder Singh Duggal who is a third party, which bears no signature of eit…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad vs. K. Mart, Prem Darwaja

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1323/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1323/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2)(3) Ahmedabad K. Mart 38, Teliya Mill Compound O/S. Prem Darwaja Ahmedabad – 380 002 बनाम / V/S. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aakfk 2520 R अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 27.05.2024 Passed For

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…see would need or receive a 3 ITA No.1323/Ahd/2024 The Income Tax Officer vs. K.Mart Asst. Year: 2017-18 cash loan of Rs.2.65 crores. The assessee further relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India [(2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC)] and CBI v. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410], to contend that documents found in possession of a third party are not admissible as evidence unless corroborated and unless opportunity of rebuttal or cross-examination is provided. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) examined the submissions and the assessment order in detail. It was observe…

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…/17-18/A & iii)CBE/132/OA/17-18/A 1-6, cannot be regarded as ‘books of accounts’ or ‘documents’ seized in the course of search. We also refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220) (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down by its earlier judgement in the case of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla & Ors. (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shu…

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 551/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…/17-18/A & iii)CBE/132/OA/17-18/A 1-6, cannot be regarded as ‘books of accounts’ or ‘documents’ seized in the course of search. We also refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220) (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down by its earlier judgement in the case of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla & Ors. (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shu…

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Chennai

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 549/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…/17-18/A & iii)CBE/132/OA/17-18/A 1-6, cannot be regarded as ‘books of accounts’ or ‘documents’ seized in the course of search. We also refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220) (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down by its earlier judgement in the case of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla & Ors. (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shu…

Mohanraj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Coimbatore

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 548/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 548 To 552/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 Shri Mohanraj Deputy Commissioner Of 76, State Bank Road, Vs. Income Tax, Coimbatore-641 018. Central Circle-3 Pan: Ahopm-2335-H Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Five Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, All Dated 16.02.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2014-15 To 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Is Raised In These Appeals, Hence, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Identical Grounds Are Raised Except For Variation In Figures.

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.T.M.Suganthamala, CIT
Section 153ASection 250Section 56

…/17-18/A & iii)CBE/132/OA/17-18/A 1-6, cannot be regarded as ‘books of accounts’ or ‘documents’ seized in the course of search. We also refer to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (394 ITR 220) (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles laid down by its earlier judgement in the case of CBI vs. V.C.Shukla & Ors. (supra). The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reads as follows:- ITA Nos.548 to 552//CHNY/2024 "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on record, this Court in V.C. Shu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…We also gainfully refer to the decision of t of search. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) Society) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220)wherein at paragraphs 278 at paragraphs 278 to 282 of the judgment, to 282 of the judgment, it has been observed as under: "278. With respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on respect to the kind of materials which have been placed on respect to the kind of materials which have been plac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Gopu Rajagopal, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue and cross objections

ITA 1811/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Nathala Ravi Babu, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 69A

…he decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla C.B.I. v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410 and and Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs Union of India (394 ITR 220) Union of India (394 ITR 220). Having regard to this position of law, we . Having regard to this position of law, we now advert to the noting’s noting’s found in the material seized from the premises und in the material seized from the premises of M/s SRS Mining. It is observed that, the assessee had explained before of M/s SRS Mining. It is ob…