Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 (184 ITR 404)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 8…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 8…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…ent; admission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V. IA…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 22 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 8…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V.…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V.…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Chand Rai V. CIT: 88 ITR 293 (P&H) Indo Java & Co. V.…

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…true. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the legal proposition above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in reducing substantial addition. [Para 4] 39. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 404 has held" An admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. It is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concern that a particular income is not taxable in this hands". 40. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 held that it is a…

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…true. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the legal proposition above, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in reducing substantial addition. [Para 4] 39. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayuam Vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 404 has held" An admission or acquiescence cannot be a foundation for an assessment. It is always open to an assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authority concern that a particular income is not taxable in this hands". 40. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 293 held that it is a…

JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…aj.), CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh Deepak Kumar [1993]\n200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman\n344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270\n(Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D.\nJewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram\nRawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa [1985]\n156 ITR 105/23 Taxman 568 (Raj.) and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR\n597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). In the above referred cases mainly the question was\ninvolved under secti…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…dmission may be an important piece of evidence but cannot be held to be conclusive. - Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala: 91 ITR 18 (SC) - The Supreme Court in Sri Krishna vs. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376 - Abdul Qayume vs. CIT: 184 ITR 404 (All.) - The Federal Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Kerala: AIR 1995 Kerala 62 @ 64 (Ker) 46. To the same effect are the following decisions: Basant Singh V. Janki Singh: AIR 1967 SC 341 (SC) Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd.: 81 ITR 303 (Del) Satinder Kumar (HUF) V. CIT: 106 ITR 64 (HP) DCIT V. Sreeni Printers: 67 STC 279 (Ker.) KrishanLal Shiv Ch…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…(Raj.), CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh Deepak Kumar [1993] 200 ITR 788 (Raj.), CIT v. Godavari Corpn. Ltd. [1993] 200 ITR 567/68 Taxman 344 (SC), CIT v. H.H. Maharao Bhim Singhji [1988]173 ITR 79/36 Taxman 270 (Raj.), Abdul Qayume v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404/50 Taxman 171 (All.), M.D. Jewellers v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 196/73 Taxman 493 (Raj.), CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v. Pradyuman Kumar Kachhawa [1985] 156 ITR 105/23 Taxman 568 (Raj.) and K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 (SC). In the above referred cases mainly the question was involved under section 52…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…ith the help of proof as discussed above. In this regard, following decisions are relied: - 1. Pullangode Ruber Produce Co. Ltd. v State of Kerala and Another [1973] 91 ITR 18 [SC]. - 2. Chitra Oevi vs ACIT [2002] 77 TTJ 640 JU] - 3. Abdul Qayume v CIT [1990] 184 ITR 404 (All) - 4. Jagdish Chand Gupta v ACIT [1996] 56 TTJ [Chd] 337 58 ITD 142 [Chd] - 5. Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT 88 ITR 293 [P & HJ 17)…. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no addition on account of on-money payment or investment in construction can be made on the basis of admission u/s 132(4)…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 vs. VIR SEN SINDHU

ITA/1426/2018HC Delhi20 Feb 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…rores and immediately after that retracted Rs. 86 crores based on legal advise that above sum is not chargeable to tax in India. In view of this the decision relied upon by the revenue cannot help its case. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in 184 ITR 404 has held that erroneous admission by the assessee cannot be a foundation for the assessment whereas it was offered under erroneous impression or misconception of law. It is always possible for assessee to demonstrate and satisfy the authorities that particular income was not taxable and it was offered under erroneous impression. In th…

M/S. KAKDA STEELS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 916/IND/2019[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)

….) respect of amount allegedly paid by assessee to a builder, material found in course of survey in premises of builder could not be used in block assessment of assessee to make addition 28. Abdul Quyme v CIT An admission or an acquiescence cannot be a (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All) foundation for an assessment. A finding in this regard is a condition precedent and where no such finding is recorded, the action of the authority concerned cannot be upheld. 29. CIT vs Radhe Associates Held that the addition by assessee construction (2013) 37 taxmann.com firm, only on basis of partner’s statement which 336 (Guj.) was later…

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5130/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…-money was erroneously offered as income in A.Y 2011-12 under an erroneous 45 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as…

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4915/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Sumer Builders V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Circle – 5(3) 201, Commerce House {Erstwhile Dcit, Central Circle – 36} 140, Nm Road, Fort Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor Mumbai – 400 023 Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 Pan: Aaafs2829R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan

Section 36(1)(iii)

…-money was erroneously offered as income in A.Y 2011-12 under an erroneous 45 ITA NO.4915 & 5130/MUM/2016 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Sumer Builders understanding and such erroneous offer could not lead to taxing the same. Ld. Counsel relied on Abdul Qayumme v. CIT [184 ITR 404 (All)], Mayank Poddar v. ITO [262 ITR 633 (Cal)] and SAIL DSP Employees Association v. UOI [262 ITR 638 (Cal)], to urge that any amount of admission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not taxable. 53. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page No.3, Para 4 of the Assessment order stated that, even as…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MANOJ M. DESAI, MUMBAI

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…- (1977) 106ITR 64 (HP). Not only that an admission or an acquiescence on the part of an assessee cannot be the foundation of assessment as held in various judicial pronouncements [Ref. Absalom v/s Talbot (1944) 26 Tax Cases 166, Abdul Qayumme v/s CIT- (1990) 184 ITR 404 (All), Mayank Poddar v/s. ITO - (2003) 262 ITR 633 (Cal), SAIL DSP Employees Association v/s UOI - (2003) 262 ITR 638 (Calutta). As evident, the addition made by the the Assessing Officer is simply based on the statement of some third party who later retracted his statement. Even this action of the Ld. AO is a seriously questionable since, it is…

THE THANE ZILLA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,THANE vs. ACIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4296/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 80P(2)(a)

…dmission or misapprehension could not make an item taxable which is otherwise not so. In support of this, we would like to place reliance on the following decisions:- a. Decision of Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Abdul Qayume vs. CIT reported in 184 ITR 404 (All) b. Decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mayank Poddar vs. ITO reported in 262 ITR 633 (Cal) c. Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of SAIL DSP VR Employees Association 1998 vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 262 ITR638 (Cal) 6.6. We also find that the concerned Chartered Accountant who had made the aforesaid subm…

Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sri Krishna v. Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 SC 376

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 vs. VIR SEN SINDHU

M/S. KAKDA STEELS PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHOPAL

DCIT CENT. CIR. -5(3) (ERSTWHILE DCIT CENT. CIR. -36), MUMBAI vs. SUMER BUILDERS, MUMBAI

SUMER BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(3), MUMBAI

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MANOJ M. DESAI, MUMBAI

THE THANE ZILLA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,THANE vs. ACIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, THANE