Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

84 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#1286 most cited

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.

88

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Startex (India) (P.) Ltd v DCIT · 84 ITD 320 · Section 132(4A) · presumption · documents seized · person from whom found · section 292CC

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 69ASection 132(4A)Section 132(4)Section 292CSection 153CSection 143(3)Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

section 292cctax recovery officersection 153(c)(1)jewellery found during searchpeak credit theorysection 132(4a)section 153(c)section 2(45)dumb documentsretraction of statementsection 131(1)section 131(1a)

Judgments citing Startex (India) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Kartik Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue’s Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1682/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. R.KFor Respondent: Smt. Puja Jindal, CIT(DR)Smt. Rano
Section 132Section 153Section 153C

…/292C is not applicable to the assessee. The appellant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Metrani V. CIT: 287 ITR 209 (SC) and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT: 84 ITD 320 and other cases cited wherein it was held that presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act is only against the person in whose possession search material is found and not against any other person. It was further held that the presumption is rebuttable and not conclusive and it cannot be applied in the absence of corroborative evidence. 4.3.2…

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

…tment in drawing adverse inference against the assessee after allowing the assessee an opportunity of cross-examining the said person. xxvi. Reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon‘ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Straptex India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum) (pages 337 to 352 of PB-5) wherein the Hon‘ble ITAT opined on the need for providing the opportunity of cross examination by the A.O in the manner as follows: ―8. It is a settled law that the statement of any person cannot be utilised against the other person unless the other person is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In th…

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

…tment in drawing adverse inference against the assessee after allowing the assessee an opportunity of cross-examining the said person. xxvi. Reference is craved to the judgment of the Hon‘ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Straptex India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum) (pages 337 to 352 of PB-5) wherein the Hon‘ble ITAT opined on the need for providing the opportunity of cross examination by the A.O in the manner as follows: ―8. It is a settled law that the statement of any person cannot be utilised against the other person unless the other person is given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. In th…

Mrs. Sumedha Sudam Kamthe, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2172/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69C

…. Salek Chand Aggarwal, reported as 300 ITR 426 (Allahabad) ii) Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal Vs.Tax Recovery Officer, in ITA No.334/PUN/2013, A.Y.2004-05 decided on 30th May, 2014. iii) Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, reported as 84 ITD 320 (Mum.) iv) Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar, reported as 97 ITR 696 (Bombay). 11. The Ld. AR for the assessee also submitted that the issue raised in ground of appeal No. 5 and 6 are on without prejudice basis and he fairly admitted that it was new plea being raised before the Tribunal and also admitted no agricultu…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 178/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 148

…urce in the bank account of the shareholders is through transfer, not by cash. Apart from these facts, assessee has also relied upon ratio of following decisions which are directly in its favour: Ambreshwar Grih Nirman Samiti 84 ITD 139 Starptex India P Ltd 84 ITD 320 T.S Venketation 74 ITD 298 Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) 263 ITR 75 SMC Share Broker Ltd 159 Taxman 306 Jafferali K Rattonsey 53 SOT 220 Nipuan Auto P Ltd 89 DTR 342 Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd and others 68 DTR 38 Dolphine Marbles (P) Ltd 57 DTR 58 Dadhimati Syntex P Ltd 259/Jodh/2013 Dt 31/7/13. Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench Bharti Syntex Ltd 5…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 177/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 148

…rce in the bank account of the shareholders is through transfer, not by cash. Apart from these facts, assessee has also relied upon ratio of following decisions which are directly in its favour: Ambreshwar Grih Nirman Samiti 84 ITD 139 Starptex India P Ltd 84 ITD 320 T.S Venketation 74 ITD 298 Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) 263 ITR 75 SMC Share Broker Ltd 159 Taxman 306 Jafferali K Rattonsey 53 SOT 220 Nipuan Auto P Ltd 89 DTR 342 Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd and others 68 DTR 38 Dolphine Marbles (P) Ltd 57 DTR 58 Dadhimati Syntex P Ltd 259/Jodh/2013 Dt 31/7/13. Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench Bharti Syntex Ltd 5…

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

…whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. It is further held that the presumption is rebuttable and not conclusive and it cannot be applied in the absence of corroborative evidence. Straptex India P Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum). In the case of Rama traders vs. First ITO [1998] 25 ITD 599 (Pat.) (TM) it was held that no 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 Ra…

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

…whose possession the search material is found and not against any other person. It is further held that the presumption is rebuttable and not conclusive and it cannot be applied in the absence of corroborative evidence. Straptex India P Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mum). In the case of Rama traders vs. First ITO [1998] 25 ITD 599 (Pat.) (TM) it was held that no 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 Ra…