← All Phrases

“loose papers”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 1322,159 judgments

The decision most relied on for loose papers is Society v. UOI (394 ITR 220), cited in 493 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on loose papers

Society v. UOI
394 ITR 220 · 2017 · Supreme Court
493
citing judgments

Uncorroborated loose papers or documents found during a search operation have no evidentiary value and cannot be the sole basis for determining undisclosed income. Additions based on such material require independent evidence to establish trustworthiness and a direct link to the assessee.

CBI v. V.C. Shukla
3 SCC 410 · 1998 · Supreme Court
442
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper, excel sheets, or diaries, often referred to as 'dumb documents,' are wholly irrelevant as evidence and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act if they lack evidentiary value. Additions to income cannot be made solely based on such documents without corroborating, reliable, and admissible evidence supported by other circumstances.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma
159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · High Court
269
citing judgments

Loose sheets of paper containing jottings, not shown to be part of regularly maintained books of accounts, do not constitute incriminating material for initiating assessment under section 153C. The satisfaction note required for 153C proceedings must specify the assessment year to which the alleged incriminating material belongs.

Common Cause v. Union of India
77 Taxmann.com 245 · 2017 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

Additions under the Income Tax Act cannot be made solely based on entries in loose sheets, dumb documents, or mere sworn statements without independent, reliable, and cogent corroborating evidence. Uncorroborated loose papers are not admissible evidence on their own, even if the original context was criminal investigation.

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary
296 ITR 619 · 2008 · High Court
175
citing judgments

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Central-2 v. Umesh Ishrani
108 Taxmann.com 437 · 2019 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made solely based on entries in loose papers found during a search without conducting any independent inquiry or verification from the alleged seller or developer. Reliance solely on digital records without corroborative evidence is insufficient for an addition.

CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah
307 ITR 137 · 2008 · High Court
166
citing judgments

Additions on account of on-money receipts cannot be justified solely based on loose papers or 'sauda-chithis' without evidence of actual payment or a clear indication of a completed transaction within those documents.

Judgments citing loose papers

DCIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 15/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

financial data was being maintained for all these nine entities. The assessee-group was subjected to search action on 05-04-2018 wherein various loose papers as well as accounting data relating to business of assessee as well as other mining entities in physical form and pen-drive was found ... include Profit & Loss Account as found in the pen-drive in the name of M/s GM & Co. and mining details as noted in the loose papers. However, there is no entity-wise bifurcation of financial data separately for each of the nine entities. The prime grievance of the assessee

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 729/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153A

financial data was being maintained for all these nine entities. The assessee-group was subjected to search action on 05-04-2018 wherein various loose papers as well as accounting data relating to business of assessee as well as other mining entities in physical form and pen-drive was found ... include Profit & Loss Account as found in the pen-drive in the name of M/s GM & Co. and mining details as noted in the loose papers. However, there is no entity-wise bifurcation of financial data separately for each of the nine entities. The prime grievance of the assessee

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Gupta. 16. The Ld. AR further submits that merely some name similar to the assessee i.e. “Kalra Ji” is appearing in the loose paper does not lead to conclusion that the same relates to the assessee. He further submits that in case of certain other persons also it was alleged ... from M/s Bright Professionals. It is trite law now that without any corroborating evidence / material, any of the figures mentioned / appearing on an unsigned loose paper seized/collected by the department during the course of search has no evidentiary value. Moreover, provisions of section 292C are also not applicable

Ashish Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

Gupta. 16. The Ld. AR further submits that merely some name similar to the assessee i.e. “Kalra Ji” is appearing in the loose paper does not lead to conclusion that the same relates to the assessee. He further submits that in case of certain other persons also it was alleged ... from M/s Bright Professionals. It is trite law now that without any corroborating evidence / material, any of the figures mentioned / appearing on an unsigned loose paper seized/collected by the department during the course of search has no evidentiary value. Moreover, provisions of section 292C are also not applicable