Video Master v. JCIT

378 ITR 374Supreme Court of India2015#2054 most cited

What is Video Master v. JCIT authority for?

A statement made by a partner during a search and seizure operation disclosing undisclosed income can be used as evidence to make an addition to the assessee's income, and such a disclosure is not considered a case of 'no evidence'.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Video Master v JCIT · section 132(4) · voluntary admission · undisclosed income · incriminating material · search and seizure · assessment · partner's statement · evidence

Also reported as

66 Taxmann.com 361282 CTR 221

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionsection 133(a)section 158bb(1)section 158b(b)retraction of statementsection 153b(1)(a)section 158bbtime barred assessmentsection 148(1)section 153(1)(a)bona fide mistakestatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Video Master v. JCIT

DCIT, CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1838/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 1837/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1838/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-31, 9B, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy New Delhi-110002 Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR1956R ITA No. 1840/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1841/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Vs M/s ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-31, 9B, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Ne…

DCIT- CC-31, New Delhi vs. Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 1837/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 1837/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ITA No. 1838/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs M/s Realtime Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-31, 9B, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy New Delhi-110002 Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR1956R ITA No. 1840/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 ITA No. 1841/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 DCIT, Vs M/s ENN VEE Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-31, 9B, Vandana Building, 11, Tolstoy Ne…

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 611/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

…u/s 153C of the Act. For this purpose, she relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshanlan Sanchiti Vs. CCIT 292 Taxman 549 (SC). 4.1 Further, she relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT (378 ITR 374), wherein held that "it is not possible to say that this is the case of evidence at all in as much evidence in the form of statement made by assessee himself and other corroborative material are there on record." 4.2 For the same proposition, she relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abdul Razak, wherein held…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…(Α.Υ.2017-18) with regard to Capital subsidy she submitted that this ground was not adjudicated by ld. CIT(A). Finally, she relied on following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…(Α.Υ.2017-18) with regard to Capital subsidy she submitted that this ground was not adjudicated by ld. CIT(A). Finally, she relied on following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…A.Y.2017-18) with regard to Capital subsidy she submitted that this ground was not adjudicated by ld. CIT(A). Finally, she relied on following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee’ firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 382/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…in bold and underline supplied] 11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 376/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…in bold and underline supplied] 11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 375/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…in bold and underline supplied] 11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: "A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 374/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…in bold and underline supplied] 11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

M/S. Kesar Marble and Granites Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

ITA 373/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Section 132Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153C

…in bold and underline supplied] 11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: "A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 836/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…ome of the assessee since the credit in assessee's bank account of Rs.1,77,13,444/- was not properly explained. 4.1 She relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

Sri. Maruthivandith Reddy Mannur, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

ITA 835/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 234ASection 69A

…ome of the assessee since the credit in assessee's bank account of Rs.1,77,13,444/- was not properly explained. 4.1 She relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises of the assessee' firm and others where in partner of the assessee disclosed certain undisclosed income. Accordingly, an addition was made to the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that statement made by partner could be used as evidence and accordingly…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 256/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, NR Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAVPD 6554 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Ag…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6702/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6701/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5334/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5332/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5330/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…& 71 CO Nos. 342 to 345/Del/2016 ITA Nos. 6701 & 6702/Del/2017 Pariminder Singh Kalra buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T. Act. h) Video Master Vs JCIT 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no evidence i) Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT (31 taxmann.com 274, 215 Taxman 229, 351 ITR 143) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an…