Unique Art Age v. ACIT

152 ITD 600Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#23365 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 148Section 158BB

Issues it is cited on

section 133section 133aincome-tax officersection 132(4)section 132section 13personcompanysection 143(3)nfactotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing Unique Art Age v. ACIT

SUPRIYA ROY,AGARTALA vs. ITO, WARD-1, AGARTALA, AGARTALA

ITA 101/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am (Through : Virtual Hearing) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.101/Gty/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year 2018-2019) Vs. Ito Ward-1, Agartala Supriya Roy, Ram Thakur Trading, Central Road, Agartala, Tripura-799001 Pan No.: Acbpr 7501 G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mody, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश / Order Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Id. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Chennai, Dated 13.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. At The Time Of Hearing The Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To Pages 9 To 16 Of The Paper Book Which Was Copy Of The Written Submission Filed. The Same Reads As Follows:- 2

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mody, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

…view that merely on the basis of admission the assessee could not have been subjected to such additions unless and until, some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission." Page 5 of 8 6 ITA No.101/GTY/2025 13 iii) Unique Art Age v. AO [2014] 152 ITD 600 (Jaipur – Trib.), The Hon'ble Tribunal has also held that statement recorded under section 133A on oath cannot be relied as evidence. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held, to quote: "3.8 Effect of admission made in statements recorded during survey under section 133A of the Act 18. The position of law regarding the evidentiary value of admissions made i…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and both the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ven rejected assessee's books of account while treating transaction in question to be bogus, impugned addition deserved to be deleted. 16. Referring to the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Art Age vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 152 ITD 600 (Jaipur-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the statement recorded u/s 133A on oath during survey could not be relied as evidence. 17. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. DSG Papers (P.) Ltd. Reported in (2024) 161 taxmann.com 586 (P&H), he submitted that…

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

ITA 1374/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar &
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

…even rejected assessee's books of account while treating transaction in question to be bogus, impugned addition deserved to be deleted. 16. Referring to the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Art Age vs. ACIT reported in (2015) 152 ITD 600 (Jaipur-Trib.), he submitted that the Tribunal in the said decision has held that the statement recorded u/s 133A on oath during survey could not be relied as evidence. 17. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs. DSG Papers (P.) Ltd. Reported in (2024) 161 taxmann.com 586 (P&H), he submitted that t…