incriminating material — 8,981 case laws

Luxora Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1292/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Us Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of, Inter Alia, The Construction & Development Of Integrated Townships. The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 12Th December 2011 At A Total Income Of Rs 42,18,260. However, As A Result Of Search Operations Having Been Carried Out By The Income Tax Department On The Assessee & Its Associated Persons & Group Enterprises, The Assessee Was Called Upon To File A Fresh Return Under Section 153A, Which Was

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

short point, in our humble understanding, that we need to adjudicate in this case is whether, in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of the search operations, any addition can be made in an assessment under section 143(3) read with Section 153A. Ground number ... Ld.CIT(A) disposed off the appeal filed by the assessee by adjudicating only Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee on the issue of incriminating material and other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as it becomes academic in nature. For the sake of clarity, the finding

Ruchi Acroni Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 824/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.824 /Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Ruchi Acroni Industries Vs. Dcit,Cc-7(2) Ltd., 611, Tulsiani Room No. 655, 6 Th Floor, Chambers, Nariman Aaykar Bhavan, Point, Mumbai – 21 Mumbai 20 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacr6534R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Bhupendra Shah Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am):

For Appellant: Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Counsel vehemently contended that this was the unabated assessment year in the case of the assessee and during the course of search no incriminating material was found pertaining to agricultural income, therefore, addition made by the A.O was invalid. The ld. Counsel has also furnished paper book comprising copies ... However, in the case of the assessee after perusal of the material on record, we find that lower authority has not pointed out any incriminating material found and seized during the course of search action on the basis of which addition of agricultural income was made in the case

DCIT Central Cir (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Raksha Bullion, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 376/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Assessee C.O. No. 78/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) M/S Raksha Bullion, 134/136, Moti Building, 3Rd Floor, S.M. Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Aahfr2224C ..... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1), 804, 8Th Floor, Old Cgo Building, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400057. ...... Assessee Appellant/Revenue By : Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Respondent/Assessee By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya, Ca Date Of Hearing : 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69A

pertinent to mention that other than the statement of Shri Anil B. Jain there is no incriminating material found by the Department. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A), submissions of the assessee and the factual Paper Books filed by the assessee

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1448/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 131Section 143(3)

group, who was a third party, was not binding upon him. The assessee further contended that in the absence of recovery of any incriminating material from its premises, the assessment completed was untenable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention and made various additions to the income of the assessee ... attributed to a third party, there had to be a connect or corroboration and there was none in the case of the assessee. No incriminating material was found in the premises of the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable. No question of law arose

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1447/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 131Section 143(3)

group, who was a third party, was not binding upon him. The assessee further contended that in the absence of recovery of any incriminating material from its premises, the assessment completed was untenable. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention and made various additions to the income of the assessee ... attributed to a third party, there had to be a connect or corroboration and there was none in the case of the assessee. No incriminating material was found in the premises of the assessee. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable. No question of law arose

DCIT- CC-3(1), Mumbai vs. Nirmal Lifestyle (Pune) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, we agree with the findings and formulas given by the Ld

ITA 3088/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Dr. Mahesh Akhade - CIT(DR)For Respondent: Sh. Bhadresh Doshi

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

However, the additions as made by the Ld. A.O. have no connection whatsoever with the Search Proceedings since no incriminating material was found so as to justify the Addition of Notional Interest Income and Loan Processing fees. There is no evidence placed on record by the Ld. A.O. which corroborates ... under section 132A as the case may be." As per the italicised part the Court gave its view on the issue of nexus between incriminating material found during the course of search and addition made at the time of assessment u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is pronounced

Smt. Kumar Gomathi, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3417/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms.T.V.Muthu Abirami, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56(2)

passing reference on the issue. However, the issue before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on assessment of undisclosed income in absence of incriminating material found as a result of search, when the assessments have been unabated/concluded as on the date of search. Therefore, we are of the considered view