Vinod Solanki v. UOI

16 SCC 537Supreme Court of India2008#6576 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also reported as

239 ELT 157

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 271AABSection 131

Issues it is cited on

section 271daretraction of statementsection 153b(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 271aabretracted statementsection 153c proceedingsbogus long term capital gainsection 153b(1)dumb documentssection 10(38)loose papers

Judgments citing Vinod Solanki v. UOI

SHABNAM BHARATINDER SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3142/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…d. 2014] 52 taxmann.com 133 (Allahabad) c. Continental Cement Company v. Union of India [2014] 49 taxmann.com 374 (Allahabad) d. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) e. Vinod Solanki v. Union of India and Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 537 f. Manak Kala v. Union of India and Ors 269(2020) DLT 105 H. Because the impugned addition is also contrary to the test of human probabilities and therefore ought to be quashed. The impugned order ignores that the person allegedly receiving the payment, i.e. the Appellant and the person at whose behest the payment was made, i.e. Sh. Kuldeep Bishn…

SHABNAM BHARATINDER SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3141/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…d. 2014] 52 taxmann.com 133 (Allahabad) c. Continental Cement Company v. Union of India [2014] 49 taxmann.com 374 (Allahabad) d. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) e. Vinod Solanki v. Union of India and Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 537 f. Manak Kala v. Union of India and Ors 269(2020) DLT 105 H. Because the impugned addition is also contrary to the test of human probabilities and therefore ought to be quashed. The impugned order ignores that the person allegedly receiving the payment, i.e. the Appellant and the person at whose behest the payment was made, i.e. Sh. Kuldeep Bishn…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…of the statement fails to establish his allegation of inducement, etc, while acting on the statement the authority is not completely relieved of his obligation at least subjectively to apply its mind to the subsequent retraction. Vinod Solanki vs. UOI: (2008) 16 SCC 537 Legal position applied to present facts 64. On perusal of the aforesaid, it will kindly be appreciated that it is trite law that admission, though relevant, is not conclusive. The entire purpose of the assessment is to tax correct taxable income of the assessee under the provisions of the Act. Being so, it is not at all permissible to make any add…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S HALMIRA ESTATE TEA PRIVATE LIMITED

ITAT/30/2025HC Calcutta16 Apr 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

For Appellant: Mr.Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Arijit Chakraborti, Ld. Adv
Section 108Section 123Section 130

…ation" or "mere suspicion," a threshold the Revenue failed to satisfy. 5.4. Transitioning to the evidentiary weight of the carrier’s statement, Mr. Chakraborti placed heavy reliance on the landmark ruling in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India & Anr. [(2008) 16 SCC 537], for the contention that a confession is "weak evidence," particularly when the same was extracted under duress and physical threat. The legal principle explained in Vinod Solanki (supra), that the Court must weigh the evidentiary value by bearing in mind the attending circumstances of the retraction, as the initial statement was extracted…

NITIN GOEL,GHAZIABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…d. 2014] 52 taxmann.com 133 (Allahabad) c. Continental Cement Company v. Union of India [2014] 49 taxmann.com 374 (Allahabad) d. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) e. Vinod Solanki v. Union of India and Anr. (2008) 16 SCC 537 f. Manak Kala v. Union of India and Ors 269(2020) DLT 105 H. Because the impugned addition is also contrary to the test of human probabilities and therefore ought to be quashed. The impugned order ignores that the person allegedly receiving the payment, i.e. the Appellant and the person at whose behest the payment was made, i.e. Sh. Kuldeep Bishn…

MANISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 986/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

JASMIN K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 984/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

ALPESH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

JITEN K. AJMERA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE KISHORE H. AJMERA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

AJMERA PHARMASURE LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1137/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.Ο. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has nо evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements.\n\n(iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue…

ASHISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1135/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has nо evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements.\n\n18\nITA No.626/Mum/2021 and others\nShri Jiten K Ajmera and Others\n\n(iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide af…

MINAL M AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1112/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…e, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI-[(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements.\n\n(iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue…

REENA A AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1111/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

AVANI J AJMERA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1110/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 1109/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…, on fact as well as in law. In fact, nowhere in his order has the A.O. disputed the said affidavits. A retracted statement has no evidentiary value. This has now been amply clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Solanki v/s. UOI- [(2008) 16 SCC 537 (SC)) [Pg. 247 to 251 of P.B.) The Assessee therefore submits that no addition can at all be made relying on the said statements. (iv) It is submitted that the said statement(s) of Assessee recorded during the search on 25 to 29 July, 2013 were categorically retracted vide affidavit dated 02.08.2013 as the same were taken under coercion, undue inf…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 681/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…prevented further investigation in the issue as held in case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT (2002) 82 ITO 453 (Pune). It is settled that the retraction is permitted, if there is cogent evidence to support it as held in the case of Vinod Solanki v Union of India [2009] 239 ELT 157 (SC). Further, as held in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT (1973) 88 I7R 293 (P&H) that in case of retraction, burden of proof is on the assessee. I do not find any such evidence with the Appellant discharging its onus. Hence, I agree with the learned AO that the Appellant's retraction is unreliable and not genuine. Accordingly, I con…

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…prevented further investigation in the issue as held in case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT (2002) 82 ITO 453 (Pune). It is settled that the retraction is permitted, if there is cogent evidence to support it as held in the case of Vinod Solanki v Union of India [2009] 239 ELT 157 (SC). Further, as held in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT (1973) 88 I7R 293 (P&H) that in case of retraction, burden of proof is on the assessee. I do not find any such evidence with the Appellant discharging its onus. Hence, I agree with the learned AO that the Appellant's retraction is unreliable and not genuine. Accordingly, I con…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 682/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor Phadke & Shri Vikas AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 153A

…prevented further investigation in the issue as held in case of Hotel Kiran v ACIT (2002) 82 ITO 453 (Pune). It is settled that the retraction is permitted, if there is cogent evidence to support it as held in the case of Vinod Solanki v Union of India [2009] 239 ELT 157 (SC). Further, as held in the case of Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v CIT (1973) 88 I7R 293 (P&H) that in case of retraction, burden of proof is on the assessee. I do not find any such evidence with the Appellant discharging its onus. Hence, I agree with the learned AO that the Appellant's retraction is unreliable and not genuine. Accordingly, I con…