How many judgments cite Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT?

31 judgments on BharatTax cite Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT (146 Taxmann.com 553), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69A, Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 147.

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT

146 Taxmann.com 553High Court2023#3837 most cited

What is Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT authority for?

Additions to income cannot be sustained on the basis of loose sheets or seized documents if they do not indicate that any transaction actually took place or lack details like the nature of the transaction and the name of the party.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sunil Kumar Sharma v DCIT · SK Gupta v DCIT · 63 TTJ 532 · loose sheets · dumb document · addition on seized paper · corroborative material · nature of transaction · name of party · futuristic planning

Also reported as

63 TTJ 532

Sections most often in play

Section 69A Section 143(3)Section 115BBE Section 153A Section 153D Section 147 Section 132 Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 147r section 37b freebies to doctors section 153a(1)(a)section 144ba section 142(2a)section 158bg substance over form rule of consistency section 127 specified authority section 153b

Judgments citing Sunil Kumar Sharma v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No.99 & 100/NAG/2023 (Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20) Dy.CIT – Central Circle – 2(1) v. Deepak Suresh Gadge 3rd Floor, Room No. 312 G/2, 2nd Lane Aayakar Bhawan Behind Hitwada Press Telangkhedi Road, Civil Lines Dhantoli, Nagpur – 440012 Nagpur – 440001 PAN – ABZPG6643H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Advocate Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT(DR) Revenue Represented by : Date of conclusion of hearing : 18.03.20…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Deepak Suresh Gadge, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member

Section 132Section 153Section 69C

Vikash Sethia, Bangalore vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1064/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Vikash Sethia Vs Acit, Central Circle - 1(2) No. 102, Kalpak Arcade C R Building, Queens Road 19 Church Street Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560001 Pan – Amjps0361H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)’S Order Dated 12.10.2022. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: - The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Salary & Interest Income. For Ay 2014-15 Return Of Income Was Filed On 12.06.2014 Declaring Income Of Rs.2,88,470/-. Consequent To A Search In The Premises Of Mahaveer Medicare & Also The Assessee On 19.12.2014 Assessment Was Completed Under Section 153C R.W.S 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 30.11.2016 Determining The Total Income At Rs.1,02,88,470/- Instead Of Rs.2,88,470/- Declared In The Return Of Income. The Ao Made Solitary Addition

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri George George K., Judicial Member and Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member Shri Vikash Sethia vs ACIT, Central Circle - 1(2) No. 102, Kalpak Arcade C R Building, Queens Road 19 Church Street Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560001 PAN – AMJPS0361H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 16.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: 20.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the CIT(A)’s order date…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…(SC) as well as CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) it has been held such loose sheets deserves to be treated as a dumb document when full details such as dates, name of the recipient etc. are lacking. c) The Delhi ITAT in the case of SK Gupta V/S DCIT 63 TTJ 532, has held that addition made on the basis of loose sheets cannot be sustained as same does not indicate that any transaction ever took place and when it does not contain any information in relation to nature of transaction and name of the party to the transaction in question. (A.Ys: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13) Rohan Mehta {Legal heir of L…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S I.G. Builders & Permoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S. I.G. Builders & Circle-12(2), Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi C-581, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan :Aaaci1640K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT, Vs. M/s. I.G. Builders & Circle-12(2), Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi C-581, Defence Colony, New Delhi PAN :AAACI1640K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr.DR Respondent by Sh. Vinod Ralhan, CA Date of hearing 27.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 14.10.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 06/05/2016 passed by the learned Commissioner of I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal vs. Shri Neeraj Mandloi, New Delhi

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…07 TTJ 200 (Chennai) held that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the dumb loose slip seized from his residence, in the absence of any corroborative material. 25. The ITAT, Delhi in the case of S.K. Gupta v DCIT reported in 63 TTJ 532 (Del) has held as under :- « The basis of addition in this case IS a seized paper 17 Shri Neeraj Mandloi ITA No.680/Ind/2020 & C.O.No.04/Ind/2020 relating to purchase/sale of property. The document bears the caption "Estimates". There seems some truth in the explanation of the assessee where it is alleged that the entries relate to some futuristi…

Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(2) E-33, Garib Society, N.S. Road No. 5 Room No. 419, 4Th Floor Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcd2841C

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Jyothi Laxmi Nayar

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…ol. 3 SC 410, wherein it was held that entries in the loose sheets, may not have any evidentiary value. In following cases the Tribunal have held that merely on the basis of entries in loose sheets there cannot be an addition - • S. K. Gupta v. Dy. CIT [1999] 63 TTJ 532 (Del). • Shri Ram Bhagwandas Raheja v. Asstt. CIT [ITA (S&S) No.118/Mum/1996, Bench "B", Order dated 23rd September, 1998]. • Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1992] 42 TTJ (Del.) 644: [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Del.). • Kishenchand Shobhrajmal v. Asst. CIT [1992] 42 TTJ (Jp) 423: [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jp). • D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2001] 70 TTJ (Mumbai) 969: [2000] 72 IT…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Shree Dhain Auto Transport Corpn., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-D.R

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…s-a-vis books of account. But when the assessee furnishes explanation which sought to be supported by evidence, the burden is shifted to the Revenue to establish that the explanation of the assessee is false. In the case ofShri S.K. Gupta v. Deputy CIT [1999] 63 TTJ 532, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi "C" Bench has deleted similar addition made on the basis of some seized paper by accepting the contention of the assessee that the seized papers contain estimates. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has observed :"The notings on the piece of paper do not indicate the actual transaction. The paper in questio…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…In the absence of concrete / positive / cogent evidence against the assessee, no addition can be made in block assessment. Ramakant Umashankar Khetan Vs.ACIT 66 TTJ 378 (Nag): 107 Taxman 44 David Dawan Vs. ACIT 71 ITD 1 (Mum) : 66 TTJ 188 S.K. Gupta Vs. DCIT 63 TTJ 532 (Del) Harakchand N.Jain Vs. ACIT 61 TTJ 223 (Mum): 101 Taxman 324 R. Ramanathan Vs. ACIT 65 ITD 108 (Mad) Navneet Jhamb Vs ACIT ITA No. 1609, 1608, 1610, 1611 and 1612 /Del/2011 (Assessment Year: 2000-01 to 2003-04 and 2006-07) Parakh Foods Ltd. Vs. DCIT 64 ITD 396 (Pune) 63 TTJ 532(Del)/ 63 ITD 153(Mum). 5.2 In this case written submissions of t…