← All Phrases

“documents seized”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1322,593 judgments

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI vs. DHEERAJ CHAUDHARY, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6380/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumaracit Vs. Sh. Dheeraj Chaudhary Central Circle-8 Flat No.1A Empire Estate, New Delhi Sultanpur, M.G. Road, New Delhi 110030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaspk 9267 B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisha Maity, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 274

P a g e | 1 Dheeraj Chaudhary (AY 2011-12) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

BHARAT KUMAR AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/RPR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\nRAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR\nBEFORE SHRI PARTHA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S ZEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 891/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Mustufa Sales Agency (prop. Mustufamiyan H. Shaikh) or M/s. Sojas Corporation. 4.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that based on the documents seized as per page nos. 156 to 159 of Annexure-A/3, from the activa, two wheeler of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri, the AO held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S ZEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 890/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Mustufa Sales Agency (prop. Mustufamiyan H. Shaikh) or M/s. Sojas Corporation. 4.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that based on the documents seized as per page nos. 156 to 159 of Annexure-A/3, from the activa, two wheeler of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri, the AO held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S ZEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 889/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Mustufa Sales Agency (prop. Mustufamiyan H. Shaikh) or M/s. Sojas Corporation. 4.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that based on the documents seized as per page nos. 156 to 159 of Annexure-A/3, from the activa, two wheeler of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri, the AO held that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S ZEN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 888/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kshatriya &For Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148

Mustufa Sales Agency (prop. Mustufamiyan H. Shaikh) or M/s. Sojas Corporation. 4.6 It is also pertinent to mention here that based on the documents seized as per page nos. 156 to 159 of Annexure-A/3, from the activa, two wheeler of Shri Mayank Ashokbhai Khatri, the AO held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI DEEPAK MOHANLAL PURSWANI, RAJKOT

ITA 665/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

deleted.\n•\nPrarthana Construction (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) (Mag).\nwherein, it was held that -\nloose papers and documents seized from premises of third parties and statement\nrecorded at back of assessee without it being afforded opportunity to interrogate said\ndocuments and without bringing on record

NAMAH SHIVAYA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 6011/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarnamah Shivaya Marketing Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-18 (1), 206, Hans Bhawan, 1 Bahadur Vs. Delhi-110002. Shah Zafar Marg, Delhi-110002 . Pan-Aabcn7435Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 07.08.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2019 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward No.18(1), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’] U/S 143(3)/263 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,070/- On 09.07.2008. Assessment Order Dated 21.03.2016 Was Passed. Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 250Section 68

have taken accommodation entry from one of the group companies M/s. Attractive Fin-Lease Pvt. Ltd. managed by Surender Kumar Jain. One of the documents seized during search was Annexure A- 3, the list at back page 28 of said Annexure contained the name of assesssee along with amount

KRISH PACKAGING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

ITA 3942/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandrakrish Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle F-11, Basement Green Sector -33, Noida Park, Extension , Uttar Pradesh – 201307 New Delhi – 110016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8980A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

which payment has been made in by way of cheques for Rs.26.30 lakhs only. As to what material is that a part of incriminating documents seized of which available at page 006 of the paper book shows that date of sale deed in regard to Gata No. 436/1 is dated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 684/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

explaining the\nsource of cash expanded towards purchase of land under consideration, the\nassessee has simply denied the cash payment stating that the documents seized\nduring search action does not have specific information above the land, payers\netc.\n8. The assessing officer, having gone through the seized material noticed that

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 512/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

explaining the\nsource of cash expanded towards purchase of land under consideration, the\nassessee has simply denied the cash payment stating that the documents seized\nduring search action does not have specific information above the land, payers\netc.\n8. The assessing officer, having gone through the seized material noticed that

YAGNIK ROAD HIGHSTREET LLP,RAJKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL -1,, RAJKOT

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed:\n(i)Ground no

ITA 511/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

explaining the\nsource of cash expanded towards purchase of land under consideration, the\nassessee has simply denied the cash payment stating that the documents seized\nduring search action does not have specific information above the land, payers\netc.\n8. The assessing officer, having gone through the seized material noticed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA VALLABHJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9207/MUM/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarincome Tax Officer, Jitendra Vallabhji Mumbai Dedhia, Room No. 304, 3Rd Vs. 4, Kaushik Niwas, L. Floor, Piramal N. Road, Matunga, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 019 Parel, Mumbai – 400 012. Pan/Gir No. Afmpd4199N (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

accept the explanation furnished by the assessee. According to the Assessing Officer, the information received from the Investigation Wing along with the documents seized during the search proceedings in the case of M/s Evergreen Enterprises indicated that the assessee had advanced cash loans through Shri Nilesh Bharani. The Assessing Officer

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2362/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the\nAssessee was reopened on the basis of the document seized in the\ncourse of search on Kele Group and the provisions of section 148\ncould not be resorted to for making an addition on the basis of\ndocuments ... assessee submits that even on\nmerits, the addition made of Rs.19,50,000/- is not justified at all\nAccording to A.O., as per the documents seized from Kele Group, the\nassessee had given a loan to Manasvi Enterprises or to Shri Abhay\nKele. In the course of asst. proceedings

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2361/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the\nAssessee was reopened on the basis of the document seized in the\ncourse of search on Kele Group and the provisions of section 148\ncould not be resorted to for making an addition on the basis of\ndocuments ... assessee submits that even on\nmerits, the addition made of Rs.19,50,000/- is not justified at all\nAccording to A.O., as per the documents seized from Kele Group, the\nassessee had given a loan to Manasvi Enterprises or to Shri Abhay\nKele. In the course of asst. proceedings

BORA AGRO FOODS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2360/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the\nAssessee was reopened on the basis of the document seized in the\ncourse of search on Kele Group and the provisions of section 148\ncould not be resorted to for making an addition on the basis of\ndocuments ... assessee submits that even on\nmerits, the addition made of Rs.19,50,000/- is not justified at all\nAccording to A.O., as per the documents seized from Kele Group, the\nassessee had given a loan to Manasvi Enterprises or to Shri Abhay\nKele. In the course of asst. proceedings

PRAMOD SUBBIAHNAPALYA VENKATPATHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 680/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Simha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

first time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that the AO had erred in making additions or disallowances when there are no incriminating documents seized at the time of search. 3. In the additional ground filed at the second time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that, whether ... recording of satisfaction u/s. 153C of the searched person has been recorded by the AO of the assessee. We have also perused the documents seized at the time of search which was mentioned as annexure – A to the above said notice. We have also perused the recording of reasons

PRAMOD SUBBIAHNAPALYA VENKATPATHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 679/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Simha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

first time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that the AO had erred in making additions or disallowances when there are no incriminating documents seized at the time of search. 3. In the additional ground filed at the second time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that, whether ... recording of satisfaction u/s. 153C of the searched person has been recorded by the AO of the assessee. We have also perused the documents seized at the time of search which was mentioned as annexure – A to the above said notice. We have also perused the recording of reasons

PRAMOD SUBBIAHNAPALYA VENKATPATHI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 678/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Simha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

first time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that the AO had erred in making additions or disallowances when there are no incriminating documents seized at the time of search. 3. In the additional ground filed at the second time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that, whether ... recording of satisfaction u/s. 153C of the searched person has been recorded by the AO of the assessee. We have also perused the documents seized at the time of search which was mentioned as annexure – A to the above said notice. We have also perused the recording of reasons

PRAMOD SUBBIAHNAPALYA VENKATATHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 677/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Simha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69

first time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that the AO had erred in making additions or disallowances when there are no incriminating documents seized at the time of search. 3. In the additional ground filed at the second time, the assessee had raised a legal plea that, whether ... recording of satisfaction u/s. 153C of the searched person has been recorded by the AO of the assessee. We have also perused the documents seized at the time of search which was mentioned as annexure – A to the above said notice. We have also perused the recording of reasons

Showing 1–20 of 2,593 · Page 1 of 130

...