Sukh Ram v. ACIT

285 ITR 256High Court2006#6295 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also reported as

159 Taxmann 38599 ITD 417

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 153ASection 158BB(1)Section 44ADSection 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

section 132asection 132section 15section 13

Judgments citing Sukh Ram v. ACIT

CHANDRA SHEKHAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member), Shri Soundararajan K. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kiran D., Addl. CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…s. 1,2,3,9 and 12 and accordingly we dismiss these grounds as not pressed. The learned A.R. filed two paper books along with notes on every issue and prayed to allow the appeal. The learned A.R. also filed the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench reported in [2006] 99 ITD 417 (Del) in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT in support of her arguments. She also took us to the various documents filed in the paper books and prayed to allow the appeal. 4. The learned D.R., on the other hand, relied on the detailed orders passed by the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and pe…

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. BHARAT ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153C

…wnership of the cash with an obligation to transfer the land property to the purchaser subject to the payment of balance consideration agreed between seller and purchaser. 8. While placing reliance on the decision in the case of Shri Sukh Ram vs. ACIT (2006) 285 ITR 256 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the presumption of ownership of an asset is the strongest when the asset involved is cash as the title is transferable by mere delivery of possession and also drawing a similar analogy as to if a business entity got covered under search operation under section 132A of the Act on account of cash…

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 571/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…essee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that assessee had accepted said witness and commission payments were rightly disallowed. 10.Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi)/120061 285 ITR 256 (Delhi)/[200611204 CTR 336 where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organization but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification…

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…essee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that assessee had accepted said witness and commission payments were rightly disallowed. 10.Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi)/120061 285 ITR 256 (Delhi)/[200611204 CTR 336 where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organization but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification…

SLN COFFEE CURING WORKS,KUDLOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 569/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…essee that commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said witness must follow that assessee had accepted said witness and commission payments were rightly disallowed. 10.Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi)/120061 285 ITR 256 (Delhi)/[200611204 CTR 336 where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organization but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification…

SURPREET SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6 , NEW DLEHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6536/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6536/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Surpreet Singh Suri, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Tax, Central Circle-6, Llp, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aohps9046K Assessee By : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Fca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 23Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)Section 234ASection 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 6536/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Surpreet Singh Suri, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income C/o Sanjiv Sapra & Associates Tax, Central Circle-6, LLP, Chartered Accountants, New Delhi C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AOHPS9046K Assessee by : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, FCA Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 24.09.2019 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL, SAHARANPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1178/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘G’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 1178/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT Subhash Chand Aggarwal Central Circle- 4 Vs. R/o. 2/1425, White House New Delhi Delhi Road Saharanpur PAN No: AAMPA4754D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. ORDER PER: ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order dated 18.12.2014 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’ for short] for Asses…

SUBHASH CHAD GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 515/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69A

…o written agreement for sale of the property and huge cash was found during the course of search which is not explained by assessee. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions. 14.1. In the case of Sukh Ram vs., ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi (2006) 285 ITR 256 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that “where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organisation but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification of books of account…

SMT. RUCHI MITTAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2811/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…er reliance was placed on the following judgments to contend that following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition u/s 69C of the Act: i) R. Mallika v. CIT 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC) CIT v. R. Mallika 219 Taxman 244 (Mad) ii) Sukh Ram v. ACIT 285 ITR 256 (Del) iii) Kahan Udyog v. CIT 219 Taxman 23 (Del) (Mag) iv) S. Rudramuniyappa v. CIT 75 taxmann.com 241 (SC) v) Karun Dutt Singh v. CIT 85 taxmann.com 177 (Ker) vi) CIT v. Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd. 77 taxmann.com 345 (Del) vii) Ashokbhai H. Jariwala v. ACIT 80 taxmann.com 175 (Guj) viii) Mahabeer Prasad Jain v. CIT 88 taxmann.com 9 (All) 7.2 Further…

SMT. RADHA MITAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2810/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Hardik Bedi, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 69A

…er reliance was placed on the following judgments to contend that following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to addition u/s 69C of the Act: i) R. Mallika v. CIT 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC) CIT v. R. Mallika 219 Taxman 244 (Mad) ii) Sukh Ram v. ACIT 285 ITR 256 (Del) iii) Kahan Udyog v. CIT 219 Taxman 23 (Del) (Mag) iv) S. Rudramuniyappa v. CIT 75 taxmann.com 241 (SC) v) Karun Dutt Singh v. CIT 85 taxmann.com 177 (Ker) vi) CIT v. Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd. 77 taxmann.com 345 (Del) vii) Ashokbhai H. Jariwala v. ACIT 80 taxmann.com 175 (Guj) viii) Mahabeer Prasad Jain v. CIT 88 taxmann.com 9 (All) 7.2 Further…

SMT. SHALINI GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6103/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Shalini Gupta Dcit 43/1, Raipur Road, Civil Vs Central Circle -04 Lines, New Delhi New Delhi -110054 Pan Aeupg2620J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153

…he Ld. DR further relied on the following decisions : 1. R. Malika Vs CIT (2017) 79 taxman.com 117 Hon'ble Supreme Court 2. CIT Vs R. Malika (2013) 36 taxmann.com 231 (Madras) / (2013) 219 Taxman 244 (Madras) 3. Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi) [2006] 285 ITR 256 (Delhi )/[2006] 204 CTR 336 4. Kahan Udyog Vs CIT [2-13] 38 taxmann.com 261 (Delhi)/[2013] 219 Taxman 23 ( Delhi) (MAG.) 5. S. Rudramuniyappa Vs CIT ( 75 taxmann.com 241) (Hon'ble Supreme Court) 6. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771) 7. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT ( 31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143 ) 8. Smt. Day…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. SHALINI GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5938/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Shalini Gupta Dcit 43/1, Raipur Road, Civil Vs Central Circle -04 Lines, New Delhi New Delhi -110054 Pan Aeupg2620J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 153

…he Ld. DR further relied on the following decisions : 1. R. Malika Vs CIT (2017) 79 taxman.com 117 Hon'ble Supreme Court 2. CIT Vs R. Malika (2013) 36 taxmann.com 231 (Madras) / (2013) 219 Taxman 244 (Madras) 3. Sukh Ram Vs ACIT 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi) [2006] 285 ITR 256 (Delhi )/[2006] 204 CTR 336 4. Kahan Udyog Vs CIT [2-13] 38 taxmann.com 261 (Delhi)/[2013] 219 Taxman 23 ( Delhi) (MAG.) 5. S. Rudramuniyappa Vs CIT ( 75 taxmann.com 241) (Hon'ble Supreme Court) 6. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT (62 taxmann.com 215, 234 Taxman 771) 7. Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT ( 31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143 ) 8. Smt. Day…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. IDM AGRO BIO TECH LIMITED , MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5805/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5805/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-10(1)(2), Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Revenue) : (Assessee) ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No. 260/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5805/Mum/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Idm Agro Bio Tech Ltd. Ito-10(1)(2), A/45, Nandjyot Industrial Estate, Room No. 25, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Safed Pool, Sakinaka, Andheri Kurla Ground Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabc 17012 C (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri N. Hemalatha Revenue By Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ts if the record discloses the same, the notice or the order does not per se become illegal."(emphasis supplied) A similar issue has been considered and rejected by the ITAT in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT (2007) 99 ITD 417(Del) and by the Delhi High Court in 285 ITR 256 (Del) in the sane case. In the Sukh Ram case the appellant had belonged to a political party. The AO recorded a statement of the party treasurer of the political party who refuted this claim. Before the ITAT and the High Court the assessee claimed that no addition can be made in his case unless he gets to cross-examine the party treasurer. This a…

BHAVESHWAR TRADERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2730/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2730/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bhaveshwar Traders Astt. Cit-31(1), बनाम/ Gala No. 15, Guffa Road, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Opp. Jain Mandir, Jogeshwari (E), Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 060 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaifb 5683 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Mistry ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 29.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 28.12.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining Disallowance Of 100% Of Bogus Purchase, Amounting To Rs.22,39,511/-. The Assessee Has Also Raised Ground Challenging The Reopening Of This Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh MistryFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…rom the alleged hawala_dealer is not borne out. The onus was on the assessee to substantiate his return of income. A similar issue has been considered and rejected by the ITAT in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT (2007) 99ITP 417(Pen and by the Delhi High Court in 285 ITR 256 (Del) in the same case. In the Sukh Ram case the appellant had claimed that the cash found at his residence during the course of the search belonged to a political party. The AO recorded a statement of the party treasurer of the political party who refuted this claim. Before the ITAT and the High Court the assessee claimed that no addition can be…

SUSEN CHAKI,MURSHIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, MURSHIDABAD, MURSHIDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 20/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2005-06

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…the creditors of the assessee and the assessee had quoted their names and address to support his purchases. Thus in the eyes of the law as explained in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACTT (2001) 99 ITD 417 (Delhi) ( case confirmed by Delhi High Court and reported as 285 ITR 256), the creditors were the witnesses of the assessee only and not of the Revenue. It was. therefore, incumbent upon the assessee to adduce proof in his favour instead of merely disclaiming the confirmation of accounts. Moreover in the remand proceedings the assessee has again made no new submissions and the AR vide order sheet dated. 20.09.14 has c…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

ITA/572/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…ause the department obtained a copy of the seized diary it could not be said that the material came through a valid and proper requisition, order or warrant as prescribed u/s 132A. The matter has been considered in detail in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT 99 ITD 417 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that any evidence which has not been found as a result of I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 16 of 30 search or such evidence which has been gathered is not relatable to evidence found as a result of search cannot be made the basis of block assessment unde…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XIII vs. MITTAL CONSUL & CO

ITA/1277/2007HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…ause the department obtained a copy of the seized diary it could not be said that the material came through a valid and proper requisition, order or warrant as prescribed u/s 132A. The matter has been considered in detail in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT 99 ITD 417 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that any evidence which has not been found as a result of I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 16 of 30 search or such evidence which has been gathered is not relatable to evidence found as a result of search cannot be made the basis of block assessment unde…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XIII vs. R.K.MITTAL

ITA/928/2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132ASection 158B

…ause the department obtained a copy of the seized diary it could not be said that the material came through a valid and proper requisition, order or warrant as prescribed u/s 132A. The matter has been considered in detail in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT 99 ITD 417 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that any evidence which has not been found as a result of I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 16 of 30 search or such evidence which has been gathered is not relatable to evidence found as a result of search cannot be made the basis of block assessment unde…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI VI vs. TUSHAR STOCK & SHARE BROKERS P. LTD.

ITA - 572 / 2008HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 132ASection 158B

…ause the department obtained a copy of the seized diary it could not be said that the material came through a valid and proper requisition, order or warrant as prescribed u/s 132A. The matter has been considered in detail in the case of Sukh Ram v. ACIT 99 ITD 417 (Del) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that any evidence which has not been found as a result of 2011:DHC:1789-DB I.T.As. No.1277/2007, 572/2008 and 928/2008 Page 16 of 30 search or such evidence which has been gathered is not relatable to evidence found as a result of search cannot be made the basis of bloc…