How many judgments cite V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT?

27 judgments on BharatTax cite V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT (219 ITR 235), spanning 2008 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115, Section 132, Section 132(3), Section 132(4), Section 133A, Section 271AAA.

V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT

219 ITR 235High Court1996#4405 most cited

What is V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

A voluntary declaration made during a survey or search can be relied upon for assessment, even if later retracted, unless proven to be made under threat or coercion.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

V. Kunhambu & Sons v. CIT · section 132(4) · section 133A · voluntary declaration · retraction of statement · undisclosed income · search and seizure · burden of proof · assessment

Also reported as

215 CTR 313

Sections most often in play

Section 115 Section 132 Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 133A Section 271AAA Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 133 section 133a section 132(4)undisclosed income search and seizure section 132 section 13 transfer person india company document

Judgments citing V.Kunhambu & Sons. v. CIT

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 2726/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…based on truth It is well known that no one will tell a lie especially harming one's own interest unless such a statement is true." Further reliance is placed on the decision of The Kerala High Court in the case of Kunhambu(V) and Sons vs. CIT cited at (1996) 219 ITR 235 wherein it has been held that "Assessment on 2 Rajiv Gulati vs. ACIT & ITA No. 2726/Del/2012 DCIT vs. Rajiv Gulati the basis of the voluntary statement during search under the provisions of I.T. Act, 1961 was valid." 3. The order of Ld CIT(A) is perverse in law and on facts. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any /all of the grounds…

Mr Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 1762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

M/S. Garrison Polysacks P.Ltd., Baroda vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Baroda

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3096/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…f the statement were clear and unambiguous, the same could be binding on the assessee even if the statement was retracted subsequently. Hotel Kiran v. Asstt C1T [2002] 82 ITD 453 (Pune). (e) The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of V, Kunhikannan vs. C1T (219 ITR 235 to 243) has held that, "If a partner came forward to disclosed about the non-entry of excess stock in the registers during the course of search the Income Tax Officer could use it even though there was no actual verification of the stock. The assessment was based on the statement of the assessee. Since the case had been made that the statement wa…

Govind Agarwal. HUF, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee’s are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove, whereas the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 826/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4531,4566,876,877,878/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years :2006-07, 2007-08, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2005-06) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Manidevi Agarwal, 720, A- 1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpa 4962 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4528/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal, 701, A-1, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adopa 4038 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.873,874/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05) Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai Vs. Shri Govind Agarwal(Huf), 720/A-5, Lok Bharti Chs Ltd., Marol Maroshi Road, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai- 400059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aiepa 3109 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) 876,828,4566,4547,218/11 &957/13&Co203.13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

…IT vs. O. Abdul Razak (350 ITR 71) in support of the proposition that clear admission in the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) is binding on the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of V. Kunhambu and Sons 219 ITR 235 in support of the proposition that the addition to the income on the basis of the statement taken u/s.132(4) of the Act is sustainable on facts of the case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagirath Aggarwal (351 ITR 143) in support of the proposition that once there is a clear admission on th…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ramprastha Greens (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3239/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR)For Respondent: S/ Shri Ved Jain, Rajesh Jain, CAs

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 40A

…uld not be used to sidetrack the attention of the department from making deeper investigation in the matter. The Ld. DR submitted I.T.A. 3238, 3239, 3240, 3241/Del/2013 Assessment Years: 20009-10,2010-11 that in the case of Rabindra D. Trivedi vs. CIT 2008 215 CTR 313 (Raj.), the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court upheld the addition of Rs. 3 lacs representing discrepancies in the stock admitted by the assessee in the statement u/s 132 (4) by holding that during the search the assessee had accepted the discrepancies and had made disclosure by way of calculated attempt to sidetrack the attention of the search party…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ramprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3238/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT (DR)For Respondent: S/ Shri Ved Jain, Rajesh Jain, CAs

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 40A

Dharam Pal Dhingra Prop. Dharampal Dhingra Electroncs vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed but no order as to

ITA/36/2008HC Delhi28 May 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

Section 132Section 260

…ated as concluded. Generally, an admission is the best evidence that an opposing party may rely upon though not conclusive. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgments reported in 168 ITR 375 (Bom.), 122 ITR 926 (All.), 210 ITR 682 (M.P.) and 219 ITR 235 (Ker.). Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber Work’s Vs. CIT, 79 ITR 63 (Del) and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahavir Metal Works Vs. CIT, 92 ITR 513 have held that where an assessee himself voluntarily concedes that a particular item represented his income and surrender such income for the purpose of…