Starptex India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

17 SOT 380Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#2234 most cited

What is Starptex India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Documents found during a search are presumed to be in the possession or control of the person if they are discovered in their premises.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Starptex India Pvt. Ltd. · section 132 · documents found in search · possession · control · premises · incriminating documents

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4A)Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153CSection 278DSection 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 292cctax recovery officersection 153(c)(1)jewellery found during searchpeak credit theorysection 153(c)section 132(4a)retraction of statementsection 131(1)dumb documentscorpus donationsection 34

Judgments citing Starptex India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

Maanya Goyal, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad, Gzbd

ITA 1536/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…es of the assessee, it cannot be attributed to the assessee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO), Saif Ali Khan Mansurali vs. ACIT 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum.). He further submitted that law is well settled that mere scribbling/jottings on a piece of paper does not constitute any credible evidence to be used against the assessee, more so, if it is not found from the possession of the as…

Bankey Behari Goyal, Agra (U.P) vs. DCIT, Central Circle Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh

ITA 1535/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…es of the assessee, it cannot be attributed to the assessee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO), Saif Ali Khan Mansurali vs. ACIT 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum.). He further submitted that law is well settled that mere scribbling/jottings on a piece of paper does not constitute any credible evidence to be used against the assessee, more so, if it is not found from the possession of the as…

Yugank Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaziabad

ITA 1534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…es of the assessee, it cannot be attributed to the assessee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO), Saif Ali Khan Mansurali vs. ACIT 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum.). He further submitted that law is well settled that mere scribbling/jottings on a piece of paper does not constitute any credible evidence to be used against the assessee, more so, if it is not found from the possession of the as…

Ani Bala Goyal, Agra vs. DCIT, CC, Ghaizabad

ITA 1533/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19 Anil Bala Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Aappb5034N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Maanya Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Blxps7985K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Yugank Goyal, Dy. Commissioner Of Income- 6/204, Tikonia, Tax, Central Circle, Belanganj, Agra 282004 Vs. Ghaziabad 201002 Pan Ahhpg4073H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar

…es of the assessee, it cannot be attributed to the assessee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Tribunal in case of Straptex India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), ACIT vs. Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), Jai Kumar Jain vs. ACIT (2007) 11 SOT (Jaipur) (URO), Saif Ali Khan Mansurali vs. ACIT 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum.). He further submitted that law is well settled that mere scribbling/jottings on a piece of paper does not constitute any credible evidence to be used against the assessee, more so, if it is not found from the possession of the as…

ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Shreyas Vasant Parikh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1580/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Shreyas Vasant Parikh R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Khar (W), Mumbai- Road, Road, Mumbai- 400052. 400020. Cross Objection No. 30/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1580/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Shreyas Vasant Parikh Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ 5 Raj Mayur, 19Th Road, R. No.676B, 6Th Floor, Vs. Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepp1118J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. R. Choksi Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri V. R. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni
Section 153CSection 68

…addition could be made, on the basis of presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee. In Asst. CIT v Kishore Lal Balwani Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.) , it has been held that though the diary seized enable the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumptions is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. It was so held in the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v Dy. CIT [2010] 130 TT J 42 (Ahd. UO) that presumption u/s 132{4A) i…

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…M/s Vyapar Industrial Ltd. 1. Bhajan Das & Bros v. ACIT (2009] 119 ITD 76 ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) (Agra) 2. M.M. FINANCIERS (P.) LTD. V. DCIT (2007] 17 SOT 5 ITAT (CHENNAI/URO) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Yamuna Nagar Kishore Lal Balwant Rai (2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chandigarh) 4. PCIT v. Krutika Land (P.) Ltd (2019] 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 5. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd 99 ITD 177 Delhi 6. Harish Daulatram Innani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(Inv), Cir. 11(1), Mumbai (2008] 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai) 7. K P Verghese v ITO 24 CTR 358 (SC) 8. P. R. Metrani vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 SC 9. CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Nooriaha…

The ACIT (Central)-1, Indore vs. Dilip Kumar Mahendra Kumar Jain HUF, Indore

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 809/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year: 2011-12 Dilip Kumar Mahendra Acit (Central)-1, Vs. Kumar Jain, 6, Near Jagdale School, Indore Janki Nagar, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaehd1394J Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.Dr Appellant By Shri Mahesh Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing 05.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2021 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ion 69 to establish that outgoings belonged to assessee had not been discharged, deeming provision of section 69 could not be invoked in instant case - Held, yes Further Hon'ble ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' in the case of ACIT vs V.Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (CHD.) has held as under:- Section! 58BD, read with section 158BC, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 _ Block assessment in search cases - Undisclosed income of any other person _ Pursuant to a search conducted at premises of a dalal (finance broker), a red bound bahi was seized - Statement of dalal was recorded to ascertain nature of entries contained…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ld that no addition could be made on the presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchases made by the assessee. (6) ACIT Vs. Kishore Lal Balwani Rai (2007) 17 SOT 380 (Chd.): Held that though the diary seized enabled the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumption is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable presumption. (7) ACIT Vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd.): It was held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party were not sufficie…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…ld that no addition could be made on the presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchases made by the assessee. (6) ACIT Vs. Kishore Lal Balwani Rai (2007) 17 SOT 380 (Chd.): Held that though the diary seized enabled the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumption is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable presumption. (7) ACIT Vs. Prabhat Oil Mills (1995) 52 TTJ 533 (Ahd.): It was held that mere entries in the accounts of a third party were not sufficie…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…addition could be made, on the basis of presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee. In Asst CIT v Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), it has been held that though the diary seized enable the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumptions is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. Presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available, when the seized papers is recovered from third party and not from the assessee. She…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…addition could be made, on the basis of presumption raised by section 132(4A), in the hands of the assessee where in the books of another firm, certain figures were found showing the purchase made by the assessee. In Asst CIT v Kishore Lal Balwant Rai [2007] 17 SOT 380 (Chd.), it has been held that though the diary seized enable the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumptions is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. Presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available, when the seized papers is recovered from third party and not from the assessee. She…