tangible material — 2,812 case laws

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 129Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

recording the reasons. The AO had initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of information passed on by the audit. It remains established that tangible material or factual information can be received from various external sources and the objections raised by an Audit Party is not absolutely barred. In Transworld ... basis of an observation made by the Internal Audit Party, it is pertinent to examine the scope and extent of such information constituting fresh tangible material. In the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT, the Supreme Court has held that an audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General

I Progress Foundation Aurangabad, Aurangabad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 855/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1187 & 855/Pun/2024 I Progress Foundation, 22/1, Mayur Complex, N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aabai4359L अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Abhay Shastri Shri Amol Khairnar 14-01-2025 11-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 05.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac) (Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 30.09.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

have failed to comply with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities

I Progress Foundation Aurangabad, Aurangabad vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 1187/PUN/2024[Not Applicable]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1187 & 855/Pun/2024 I Progress Foundation, 22/1, Mayur Complex, N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aabai4359L अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Cit (Exemption), Pune प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri Abhay Shastri Shri Amol Khairnar 14-01-2025 11-04-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Order(S) Both Dated 05.03.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [“Cit(E)"] Whereby He Rejected The Application Of The Assessee Filed Before Him In Form No. 10Ab U/S 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) & Section 80G(5)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The "Act") Filed On 30.09.2023. For The Sake Of Convenience Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)(iii)

have failed to comply with the provisions of section 12AB(1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In absence of any such tangible material in respect of proof of activities being carried out it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about the genuineness of activities

Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2) Nashik, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(47)

licensee within the meaning and spirit of section 53A of T.P. Act. If that is so, then there would be neither any tangible material nor any reason for the assessing officer to believe that 'any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment' and the 7 action of the assessing officer

Vipin Jain & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 56(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 910/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royvipin Jain & Sons Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 56 (2), C/O Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate New Delhi. 206 -207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc, Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aadhv8042G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Ms. Tanya, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date Of Order : 09.04.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi[“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 12.12.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Because The Order Of Learned Lower Authority Is Bad In Law & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Hence Is Unsustainable. 2. Because Ld. Cit (A) Grossly Erred In Law In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.4,27,01,703/-, Being Total Sale Consideration Of Shares U/S 68 Of The Act While Said Amount Is Neither Credited To Books Of Account In The Absence Of Any Accounts Nor Source Of Said Amount Is Under Doubt, Hence Addition Is Beyond The Scope Of Provision.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

preponderance of probability is taken into consideration, then also the material and evidence adduced by the assessee have to rebutted by some kind of tangible material coming on record. Otherwise the evidences and explanation of the assessee cannot be discredited. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case