← All Phrases

“hundi transaction”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69DSection 69D65 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. PATNA IRON PVT. LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 373/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

department relied upon the notings of hundi in the diary seized from the premises of third party. The said notings allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names. were written in abbreviated/code words. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on its earlier decision

SUSHIL KUMAR KANODIA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp2484B Asst. Commissioner Of Income Patna Iron Pvt. Ltd. Tax, Central Circle-2 Ground Floor, Suprabhat 6Th Floor, Annexe, Central Building, Ceat Compound, Vs. Building, Beer Chand Patel Path, Phulwari, Patna-800001, Bihar Patna, Bihar-800001, (Respondent) (Appellant) Sushil Kumar Kanodia N-601, Profesor Colony, Acit, Central Circle-2 Chitragupta Nagar, Kanakrbagh, Vs. Patna, Bihar Patna-800020, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agypk0702D Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

department relied upon the notings of hundi in the diary seized from the premises of third party. The said notings allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties including assessee whose names. were written in abbreviated/code words. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relying on its earlier decision

MEGHJI MANSUKHLAL DODHIA,BHIWANDI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

ITA 2224/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. It(Ss)A No. 2226/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 79/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mansukhlal Meghji Dodhia House No. 104, Dodhia House, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra-421 302 (Applicant) Dcit Cc-3, Thane Vs. Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane, West, Maharashtra - 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aaspd6746L (Respondent) 2. Ita No. 2224/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 80/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) 3. It(Ss)A No. 2223/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 81/Mum/2025 & 4. It(Ss)A No. 2222/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 82/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 5. It(Ss)A No. 2225/Mum/2025 S.A. No. 83/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Meghji Mansukhlal Dodhia House No. 104, Dodhia House, New Mavji Compound, Narpoli, Maharashtra-421 302 (Applicant) Dcit Cc-3, Thane Vs. Room No. 12, A Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Thane, West, Maharashtra - 400 604 Pan/Gir No. Aaspd6746L (Respondent) (2) It(Ss)A No. 2226, 2223, 2222 & 2225/Mum/2025 &

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69D

genuineness of the lender. 7. Before Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that the seized documents were merely promissory notes and did not constitute hundi transactions. It was also contended that the documents did not bear the name of the assessee and the alleged borrowings were proposed transactions which

MUKESH JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 928/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: CA Sh. S.N. AgrawalFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

assessee was not mentioned in full and no signature or PAN appeared on the seized papers, and that the essential characteristics of a hundi transaction were not satisfied. It was also argued that the assessee was not confronted with the statement of Shri Dilip Kumar Jain and no opportunity ... Officer in “Nayi Duniya” and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that he was engaged in the business of advancing cash loans or hundi transactions. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer to establish the financial capacity of the assessee to advance such alleged loans

MUKESH JAIN,INDORE vs. THE ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the

ITA 927/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani1. Ι.Τ.Α. No.927/Ind/2024 – Asst.Year 2015-16 2. Ι.Τ.Α. No.928/Ind/2024 – Asst. Year 2014-15 Mukesh Jain C/O. S.V. Agrawal & Associates Dadi Dham, 24, Joy Builders Colony, Near Rafael Tower Old Palasia 452 001 (Μ.Ρ.) Pan No. Abfpj 3732 L (Appellant) The Acit (Central)-2, Indore 452 001 (Respondent) Assessee By : Revenue By Ca Sh. S.N. Agrawal Sh. Anup Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 Order Per Siddhartha Nautiyal - Jm: Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Bhopal, [Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Cit(A)] Dated 23/10/2024 Passed For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Common Facts & Issues For Consideration Are Involved For Both The Years Under Consideration Before Us, These Appeals Are Being Taken Up Together (Grounds Extracted From Ay 2014- 15).

For Appellant: Revenue by
Section 132Section 153CSection 69

assessee was not mentioned in full and no signature or PAN appeared on the seized papers, and that the essential characteristics of a hundi transaction were not satisfied. It was also argued that the assessee was not confronted with the statement of Shri Dilip Kumar Jain and no opportunity ... Officer in “Nayi Duniya" and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that he was engaged in the business of advancing cash loans or hundi transactions. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer to establish the financial capacity of the assessee to advance such alleged loans

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

wherein it was held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GNANAGURU LAVANYA, TIRUPUR

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

wherein it was held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. LIFE LINE AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

wherein it was held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SHRI JAYA PRADEEP, CHENNAI

ITA 960/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:960/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai. Vs. Shri. Jaya Pradeep, No.154, S 1 Salma Green Castle, Greenways Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. [Pan:Aixpj-6913-G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.01.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Framed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle–2(4), Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”], For The

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA vs. MADAN MOHAN GUPTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 882/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar Garg, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT
Section 132(4)Section 250Section 69A

transaction on right side of the cash book ignoring the fact that 3 Madan Mohan Gupta, Kota. the assessee failed to prove that the hundi transaction giving cash loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- is duly accounted for; and the CIT (A) did not examine the assessee’s unusual business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

wherein it was held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

wherein it was held therein that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 453/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

upon the notings of hundi in the diary seized from the premises of a third party. The said noting's allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties, including CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer the assessee, whose names were written in abbreviated/code words. The Hon'ble High Court

DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD

In the result, the cross-objections file d by the assessee firm in A

ITA 452/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us As A Cross-Objector. Since Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals & Cross-Objections, Therefore, The Same Have Been Taken Up & Disposed Of By A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Take Up The Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection Of The Assessee Firm For A.Y.2016-17 & The Order Therein Passed Shall Apply Mutatis Mutandis For The Purpose Of Disposing Of The Other Appeal & Cross-Objection.

Section 132Section 153C

upon the notings of hundi in the diary seized from the premises of a third party. The said noting's allegedly contained entries of hundi transactions on behalf of parties, including CO No.14 & 15/Hyd/2025 United Developer the assessee, whose names were written in abbreviated/code words. The Hon'ble High Court

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

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

ITA 883/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

which negate its treatment as a Hundi: a) The transaction is strictly bilateral in nature and not tripartite, which is the essence of a Hundi transaction. b) The document is in the English language and not in any oriental or vernacular script, which is the traditional and customary form ... under: “We feel that one of the reasons for bringing s, 69D of the Act on the statute book is to cover the Hundi transaction in view of the wording of s. I of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now considering the present transactions as pointed out already. we find that

VASUPUJYA FILAMENTS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3, THANE, THANE

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

ITA 876/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Chavan &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69CSection 69D

which negate its treatment as a Hundi: a) The transaction is strictly bilateral in nature and not tripartite, which is the essence of a Hundi transaction. b) The document is in the English language and not in any oriental or vernacular script, which is the traditional and customary form ... under: “We feel that one of the reasons for bringing s, 69D of the Act on the statute book is to cover the Hundi transaction in view of the wording of s. I of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Now considering the present transactions as pointed out already. we find that

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3314/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चेई।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \n\n

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3311/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ यायपीठ, चेई।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI\nश्री एबी

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NO 1 AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 658/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:656 To 658/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.1 Auto Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aahfn 3793 J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:622 & 633/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Help Line Motor Finance, Central Circle – 2, Vs. No.1, Tam Complex, Nrmp Street, Trichy Covai Road, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaffh 3971 E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, Cit प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri.R.Venkata Raman, Ca & Shri.R.S.Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025

For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NO 1 AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

ITA 657/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri.R.Venkata Raman, CA &
Section 132Section 143(3)

wherein it was held that where a diary was seized in search of the premises of a third party allegedly containing entries of hundi transactions on behalf of various parties including the assessee, no addition could be made based on the said entries since the diary was neither found from

Showing 1–20 of 65 · Page 1 of 4

hundi transaction — 65 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax