What is Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The presumption under Section 132(4A) of the Income Tax Act applies only to the person from whom books of account or documents are seized, and not to other persons.

How many judgments cite Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT?

88 judgments on BharatTax cite Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (84 ITD 320), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 69A, Section 132(4A), Section 132(4), Section 292C, Section 153C.

Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (84 ITD 320)

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

…pers have not been found from the possession or the premises 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,…

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

…pers have not been found from the possession or the premises 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,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nashik vs. Rahul Shanta Sawale, Nashik

ITA 1126/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 50C

…on u/s. 132(4A) of the Act is not applicable to third parties other than the searched person. The CIT(A) in his order discussed the said issue at Page No. 17 and placed reliance on the order of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Straptex (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 84 ITD 320 which held the presumption u/s. 132(4A) of the Act is applicable only against the person from whom the possession of books of accounts or other documentary were found and not against any other person. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of ld. AR, we hold the AO is not justified in applying the provisions of section 132(4A) of the Act to the…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…nrespect of the person from whose possession the documents/ papers are seized. It cannot be applied against a third party and hence, no addition can be made on the basis of the evidence found with a third party. 24.1 In Straptex India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum), there was a search at the premises of Shri Niranjan Shah, in which a computer floppy was found. On the basis of the contents of the above floppy, the Revenue held that the assessee had borrowed the money in cash which was denied by the assessee. In support of its contention, the Revenue has relied upon. 132(4A). Under the given facts, the H…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 20/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the additions so made being not sustainable in the eye of law needs to be deleted…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 19/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the additions so made being not sustainable in the eye of law needs to be deleted…

Kothakota Rama Rao, Rayagada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 386/CTK/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं./Ita No.132/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.19&20/Ctk/2019 & Ita No.386/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) Kothakota Rama Rao, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1, Kothapeta, Rayagada, Bhubaneswar District-Rayagada Pan No. : Aeppk 1600 P (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/07/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 11.09.2018 & 29.08.2018 For Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017. 2. Since, Similar Issues Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity, We Shall Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y.2013-2014 In It(Ss)A No.132/Ctk/2018 After Taking Into Consideration The Grounds & Facts Mentioned

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234

…132/CTK/2018 ITA Nos.19&20/CTK/2019 1. Shri Vinit Ranawat -vrs- ACIT Central Circle-l(l) ITAT Pune(B) Bench [ Reference may be drawn to para-55, page 55 ] 2. Addl. CIT -vrs- Lata Mangeskar [97 ITR 696] Bombay High Court. 3. Straptex(India) P. Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [84 ITD 320] Mumbai. 4. CBI -vrs- V.C. Shukla [3SCC 410] SC. 5. Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. -vrs- DCIT [118 Taxman 112] Ahd. 6. Unique Organisers & Developers (P) Ltd.-vs-DCIT[118 Taxman 147] Ahd. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, it is respectfully prayed that, the additions so made being not sustainable in the eye of law needs to be deleted…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…Ltd (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC) Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 2. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 782 (SC)t 3 DhirajilalGirdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4. M/s Straptex (India) Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax reported in 84 ITD 320 by the IT AT, Bombay 5. Mohd. SocbllajimoosaTumbi v. ITO (2009) 26 DTR 329 (Ahd- Trib) 6. Panchal Associates v. ITO (1989) 43 Taxman 295 (Ahd-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 7. VishnulalKarwa v. ITO (1987) 32 Taxman 276 (Jp-Trib) (Tax- Mag). 8. ITO v. Kaka Iron Stores (1996) 54 TTJ (Chd-Trib) 142 9. Kishan Lai Jewels (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2008) 26 SOT 30 (Del…

Birendra Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. ACIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/IND/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019