← All Phrases

“incriminating material”

Search & SeizureSection 153ASection 153A8,981 judgments

The decision most relied on for incriminating material is CIT v. Kabul Chawla (380 ITR 573), cited in 3,235 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on incriminating material

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. DCIT
137 ITD 287 · 2012 · ITAT
907
citing judgments

In non-abated assessments, the Assessing Officer can make additions under section 153A based on books of accounts or documents found during a search but not produced during the original assessment, provided such material is incriminating.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

CIT v. RRJ Securities Ltd.
380 ITR 612 · 2016 · High Court
689
citing judgments

Completed assessments can be interfered with under Section 153A or 153C only on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during the search, necessitating a direct correlation between the discovered material and the power to assess or reopen concluded assessments.

Pr. CIT v. Saumya Constructions (P.)Ltd.
387 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
670
citing judgments

Assessments under Section 153A cannot be sustained without any incriminating material found during the search that substantiates the additions. This principle applies even to completed assessments where no additional income is disclosed.

Judgments citing incriminating material

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

completion of the assessment u/s 153C of the Act. In the present case, ld. AO of searched person has forwarded the seized documents being incriminating material, ld. AO of the assessee who is having jurisdiction over the assessee and ld. AO of the assessee recorded satisfaction note as seen from ... books to hold that the assessee has advanced loan in cash which is unaccounted. The loose sheets, scribbled note books cannot be treated as incriminating material unless they are corroborated with cogent evidences. The loose sheets, note pads, etc., relied upon by the assessing officer are not speaking ones. They

Navdip Anilbhai Dosani, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

ITA 2896/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

seizure operation carried out in case of M/s. Ess Gee Group of cases and its associated key persons on 17.06.2015 during which various incriminating materials, documents, unexplained cash and jewellery were seized. On the basis of incriminating material notices under section 142(1) of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Laxmi Komatireddy, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 153A

order to show that the seized agreement under consideration is not a genuine document, and the unaccounted transaction is arising out of the incriminating material found during the course of search. 10. Learned DR, while referring to the sworn statement of the assessee recorded on 31/08/2016 under section

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 98/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Analysing above orders, Ld. AR submitted that (i) The Para No. 5 & 7 of assessment-order passed by AO does not refer any incriminating material and the AO has merely assessed the surrendered income already offered by assessee in the return of income, and (ii) In the ‘Office Notes’ appended ... assessed the surrendered income already included by assessee in the return of income and that too with a clinching noting that there was no ‘incriminating material’ found during search. Therefore, when there is no “undisclosed income” as falling within (i) or (ii) of clause (c) of the Explanation

Mukesh Kumar Ranka, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 97/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Analysing above orders, Ld. AR submitted that (i) The Para No. 5 & 7 of assessment-order passed by AO does not refer any incriminating material and the AO has merely assessed the surrendered income already offered by assessee in the return of income, and (ii) In the ‘Office Notes’ appended ... assessed the surrendered income already included by assessee in the return of income and that too with a clinching noting that there was no ‘incriminating material’ found during search. Therefore, when there is no “undisclosed income” as falling within (i) or (ii) of clause (c) of the Explanation

Anju Jain, Lr Shri Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 104/IND/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Analysing above orders, Ld. AR submitted that (i) The Para No. 5 & 7 of assessment-order passed by AO does not refer any incriminating material and the AO has merely assessed the surrendered income already offered by assessee in the return of income, and (ii) In the ‘Office Notes’ appended ... assessed the surrendered income already included by assessee in the return of income and that too with a clinching noting that there was no ‘incriminating material’ found during search. Therefore, when there is no “undisclosed income” as falling within (i) or (ii) of clause (c) of the Explanation

Anju Jain, Lr Sushil Jain, Indore, Madhya Pradesh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

Appeals are allowed

ITA 103/IND/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore21 Mar 2024

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

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Analysing above orders, Ld. AR submitted that (i) The Para No. 5 & 7 of assessment-order passed by AO does not refer any incriminating material and the AO has merely assessed the surrendered income already offered by assessee in the return of income, and (ii) In the ‘Office Notes’ appended ... assessed the surrendered income already included by assessee in the return of income and that too with a clinching noting that there was no ‘incriminating material’ found during search. Therefore, when there is no “undisclosed income” as falling within (i) or (ii) of clause (c) of the Explanation

A.Raghuram, Valsarawakkam vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 373/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.373/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 A. Raghuram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 20, 3/1A, West Kamakoti Nagar, Income Tax, Agastyar Street, Valasarawakkam, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai 600 087. Chennai. [Pan:Aanpa2155P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, Dated 08.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Was Initiated & Conducted In This Assessee’S Case On 31.10.2013. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 16.04.2015, Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,03,67,310/-. The Case Was 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: 7.1.3 I have considered the submissions of the appellant. During the course of search, incriminating material to the effect that the appellant had incurred Rs.46,20,84,650/- as cost of production of the film “Aarambam" was found. When ... duress and coercion, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. The important factor in this case is that there is incriminating material to the effect that the appellant had incurred Rs.46,20,84,650/- as cost of production of the film "Aarambam" which the assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Ms Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1106/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1106/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Dar Paradise Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 599, Raja Street, Corporate Circle -1, Coimbatore – 641 001. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aafcd-3066-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, CA
Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक

Rajiv Amritlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 280/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 153A

153A 2,37,360/- gift from cousin - 2013-14 147 1,68,044/- 2.4. In the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search and only based on the statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, the above additions were made in the hands ... record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee. Since Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2018-19 are unabated assessment years and No incriminating material was seized during the course of search by the Revenue from the assessee’s residential premises, the appeals

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Tjr Properties Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 145/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153DSection 68

153A of the Act is without jurisdiction. 5. That the additions made in the assessment Order are not based on any corroborative and relevant incriminating material stated to have been unearthed during the course of any search by the Assessing Officer, though no search has taken place on the appellant ... merit and, accordingly, Ground Nos. 3 and 4 are rejected. 14. According to Ground No.5, the additions made are not based on any incriminating material found during the search. In this regard, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the ITA 5 &145/CHD/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 11 Assessing Officer

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 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 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

role of assessee in the alleged modus- operandi to rig the share market or that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Without any incriminating material to connect assessee with the aforesaid persons; their statement cannot in anyway discredit the LTCG claim of assessee on sale of shares of M/s.TTML

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 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 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

role of assessee in the alleged modus-operandi to rig the share market or that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Without any incriminating material to connect assessee with the aforesaid persons; their statement cannot in anyway discredit the LTCG claim of assessee on sale of shares

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

role of assessee in the alleged modus-operandi to rig the share market or that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Without any incriminating material to connect assessee with the aforesaid persons; their statements cannot in anyway discredit the LTCG claim of assessee on sale

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

Sheetal Rupesh Savla alleged modus-operandi to rig the share market or that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Without any incriminating material to connect assessee with the aforesaid persons; their statement cannot in anyway discredit the LTCG claim of assessee on sale of shares of M/s. AGSSL. Therefore

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

role of assessee in the alleged modus-operandi to rig the share market or that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entry. Without any incriminating material to connect assessee with the aforesaid persons; their statement cannot in anyway discredit the LTCG claim of assessee on sale of shares ... other material found during search pertaining to M/s KGN Industries Ltd. has been placed on record. The Revenue has not placed on record any incriminating material which was found as a result of the search conducted on the assesee herein. It is also the contention of the assessee that there

ACIT, CC- 3(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Himatsingka Seide Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 785/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalit(Ss)A No.17/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 10/24, Kumara Krupa Road, High Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- Grounds, Bangalore-560001. Xvi, Kolkata. (Pan: Aaach3507N) (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(Ss)A No.20/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271Section 92C

decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) by referring to non-availability of incriminating material for the addition/disallowance made in the said assessment. The said proposition of the Ld. Counsel is rejected at the threshold because the impugned assessment year

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1645/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable ... Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1644/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1644/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1645/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Dynamic Infraplanners Pvt. Ltd., 30/27, 1St Floor, East Patel Nagar, Central Circle-1, Noida-201301 New Delhi-110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd2264Q Assessee By : Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2024 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)-4, Kanpur Dated 23.03.2023. 2. Since, The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Similar, They Were Heard Together & Being Adjudicated By A Common Order. In 1644/Del/2023, Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue:

For Appellant: Dr. Shashwat Bajpai, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 68

seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable ... Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced

DCIT Central Circle-32, Delhi vs. Rnb Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 843/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Y0Gesh Kumar Usdcit, Central Circle 32, Vs. Rnb Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. House – 1, Shivaji Enclave, Main Road, Opp. Mother Dairy Near Raja Garden, New Delhi – 110 027. (Pan : Aabcr9334G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 68

shares under section 68 of the Act. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted that addition was made de hors 4. of any incriminating material found, hence he deleted the addition. The observation of the ld. CIT (A) may be gainfully read as under :- “Moreover, in the case ... heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly accepted that addition is made de hors of any 6. incriminating material found in this case. 7. Ld. Counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that investment in preference shares has been duly disclosed