tangible material — 2,812 case laws

Manju Devi Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1280/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.1280/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manju Devi Shah……………..…..…......................…...……………....Appellant P-281 Scheme Vim Cit Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Amkps3650G] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Bibekananda Madhu, Jcit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 22, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Apart From Challenging The Additions On Merits Made/Confirmed By The Lower Authorities Of Rs.42,12,703/- U/S 68 Of The Act By Treating The Long-Term Capital Gains Earned By The Assessee As Bogus, Has Also Challenged The Very Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment. 3. Since, The Legal Grounds Relating To The Validity Of The Reopening Of The Assessment Hit At The Very Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer To

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessment. It has been held time and again that the reasons to believe regarding the escapement of the income should be based on certain tangible material and it should not be mere pretence of the Assessing Officer. The reasons to believe does not mean reason to suspect. Reopening

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

ITA 513/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

file any Page 2 of 9 ITANo.512 & 513/Ind/2023 Vinita Raheja return of income. He has further submitted that the AO did not have tangible material on record to show that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment and to make the addition in question. During the physical hearing before ... threshold limit of taxable income then the addition made by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w. section1 47 without any tangible material is liable to be deleted. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

In the result, both the appeals by the assesse arising the assessment order as well as penalty order are allowed

ITA 512/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

file any Page 2 of 9 ITANo.512 & 513/Ind/2023 Vinita Raheja return of income. He has further submitted that the AO did not have tangible material on record to show that the income assessable to tax has escaped assessment and to make the addition in question. During the physical hearing before ... threshold limit of taxable income then the addition made by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w. section1 47 without any tangible material is liable to be deleted. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3960/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanish Rajnarain Goswami V. Income Tax Officer – 16(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Metropolitan Chsl Mumbai - 400020 B-6 / B-8, Nargisdas Road Pali Hill, Bandra (W) Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Addpg7655D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reasons but the conclusions of the AO one after the other. There is no independent application of mind by the AO to the tangible material which forms the basis of the reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment. The Page No. 7 Manish Rajnarain Goswami conclusions ... reproduction of the conclusion in the investigation report. Indeed it is a 'borrowed satisfaction'. The reasons fail to demonstrate the link between the tangible material and the formation of the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court is satisfied that in the facts

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 40/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.40/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Vs. Ito, Ward, Kudal. Bidyewadi, At Post Kalmath, Taluka Kankavli, Sindhudurg- 416602. Pan : Anipp5657R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar : Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Order Dated 08.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A) [‘Nfac’] For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. Legality & Validity Of Reassessment Proceeding; 1. On The Facts & In Law, The Re-Assessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 Of The Act Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Based On Suspicious & Incorrect Information. Hence, As The Formation Of Belief Is Based On Incorrect, Suspicious & Vague Facts Same Is Unsus Tainable In Eye Of Law. 2. On The Facts & In Law, There Is Serious Jurisdictional Requirement In The Reasons Recorded By The Assessing Officer As He

For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

approval giving Authority under Section 151 to apply his mind and to examine the proposal sent by the Assessing Officer and also to verify “tangible material” on record before giving approval for issuing Notice under Section 148 of the Act vitiate entire reassessment proceeding as per well settled principles ... erred in invoking power under Section 147 of the Act merely on basis of information on alleged “suspicious transactions” can’t be equated with tangible material for invoking powers under Section 147 of the Act. Hence, Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, merely on basis of suspicion

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

Taxn Ward 1(1), Chennai / DRP failed to appreciate that in the absence of fresh and tangible materials, the re-opening of assessment to verify transaction of sale would amount of change of opinion which should be considered as nullity in law. 10. The ITO, Int. Taxn Ward

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 694/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 693/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 692/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 691/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

ITA 690/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B. R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

this, the Ld. AR submitted that these observations were their own subjective inferences of the DDIT(I&CI) and were not based on any tangible material or cogent evidence against the assessee. The Ld. AR explained that, the assessee being a cooperative credit society was providing banking & credit facilities ... year under consideration because of his failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts as from the inquiry/investigation by the Investigation Wing, some tangible material was found to substantiate the fact that the assessee was the provider of accommodation entries and that, the income from commission, ranging from

Fateh Chand Charitable Trust, Meerut vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshfateh Chand Charitable Trust, Vs. Dcit (Exemption Circle), 115 Km Mile Stone, Nh 58, Ghaziabad Delhi Dehradun Road, Meerut, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatf1445N Assessee By : Shri Ramit Kakkar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ramit Kakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

crore in cash to Fateh Chand Charitable Trust M/s Herbicure Health Care of Kolkata. Reopening was made for this purpose as this information constituted tangible material for the ld. AO to form a belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The ld. CIT(E) cancelled the registration

Akunuri Sai Avinash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 42/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 50C

relates to the validity of the reopening U/s. 148 of the Act. It was argued by the Ld. AR that there are no tangible material before the Ld. AO warranting the reopening of assessment U/s. 147 of the Act. The Ld. AR argued that there is no income escaping assessment

P and Y Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (2) 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3685/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Ito P & Y Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Ward 5 (2) 1 123, A Wing Mittal Court, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400021 M K Road, Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcp2579B Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri H M Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 68

Learned. CIT(A) erred in confirming the validity of notice under Section. 148, though had been issued in absence of fresh tangible material and on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without having reason to believe of escapement of income; 2. ON facts and circumstance of the case ... into formation of belief that income of the assessee has escaped assessment cannot be found fault with. The learned Assessing Officer has received a tangible material and therefore, found if the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act has been made, the reopening of the assessment on receipt

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

decision in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinar of India (256 ITR 1) held that AO has power to re-open, provided he has tangible material to form the belief that the income had escaped assessment [refer decision in (i) Balakrishna Hiralal Wani ... material facts were fully and truly disclosed in the original assessment, (b) original assessment was completed u/s 143(3), (c) no fresh or tangible material for re-opening beyond 4 years was found, (d) re-opening was based on mere change of opinion, (e) information, which was the basis

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 717/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that estimated additions and disallowances cannot be made in search assessments unless tangible material is seized and seen in this context, the very assessment made without search material is unjustified and untenable in law. The CIT(A) after going through

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 716/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that estimated additions and disallowances cannot be made in search assessments unless tangible material is seized and seen in this context, the very assessment made without search material is unjustified and untenable in law. The CIT(A) after going through

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 715/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that estimated additions and disallowances cannot be made in search assessments unless tangible material is seized and seen in this context, the very assessment made without search material is unjustified and untenable in law. The CIT(A) after going through

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 714/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that estimated additions and disallowances cannot be made in search assessments unless tangible material is seized and seen in this context, the very assessment made without search material is unjustified and untenable in law. The CIT(A) after going through

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 647/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153A

ACIT further failed to appreciate that it is settled law that estimated additions and disallowances cannot be made in search assessments unless tangible material is seized and seen in this context, the very assessment made without search material is unjustified and untenable in law. The CIT(A) after going through

“tangible material”

Leading authorities on tangible material

Judgments citing tangible material

Manju Devi Shah, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), Kolkata.

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

Vinita Raheja, Indore vs. ITO-2(4), Indore

Mr Manish Rajnarain Goswami, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer, Mumbai

Ganesh Shankar Pujare, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kudal

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Kaushik Pravinchandra Gohel, Bhavnagar vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

Fateh Chand Charitable Trust, Meerut vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

Akunuri Sai Avinash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

P and Y Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (2) 1, Mumbai

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

ACIT, Circle - 1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangiri Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidhya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur