← 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-4(2), Mumbai vs. Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai

ITA 3532/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

form of „asset‟ had escaped assessment. To this, the AO is noted to have stated that, he was in possession of notings found in loose paper marked at Page No. 52 of Annexure A-1 which showed payment to tenants amounting to Rs.55 lacs on 04.05.2012 and Rs.80 lacs ... falls within the inclusive definition of „asset‟ set out in Explanation 2 of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Having perused this loose paper, we however are of the view that, no such acquisition of investment was discernible from the notings found on Page no. 52 of Annexure

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Realty, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to

ITA 3531/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: We Advert To The Grounds Taken In The Cross Appeals, It Would First Be Relevant To Cull Out The Basic Facts Of The Case & Effect Of Law In Brief In Respect Of Certain Ays. Search U/S 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Was Conducted Against The Rubberwala Group, On 17-03-2021 Thereby Triggering Section 153A Of The Act. Prior To The Date Of Search, The Income-Tax Assessments For Ays 2015-16 To 2019-20 Were Either Completed U/S 143(1)/143(3) Of The Act And/Or The Time Limit For Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Had Expired. Accordingly, The Income-Tax 3

For Respondent: Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

facts as noted by us are that, according to the AO, details of unsecured loans were found and seized in the form of loose paper ID marked Annexure A1, Page 50 at the residential premises of Mr. Tabrez Shaikh. The AO stated that this sheet contained names of several lenders ... having no incriminating contents whatsoever. We further note that the Ld. CIT, DR in her written submissions, at Para 2.5, has observed that, the loose paper containing details of loan transactions may not be said to be incriminating by itself. We also note that the unsecured loans found mentioned against

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stands allowed and

ITA 3508/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure Ltd. Ground Floor, Rubberwala House, Dr. A Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. बनाम / Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-4(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3508/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3505/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3504/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3549/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3503/Mum/2023

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

facts relating to this issue are that, according to the AO, details of unsecured loan were found and seized in the form of loose paper ID marked Annexure A1, Page 50 at the residential premises of Mr. Tabrez Shaikh. The AO stated that this sheet contained names of several lenders ... appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR has tacitly stated in the written submissions that the loose paper i.e. document ID marked 'A1, Page 50', may not be said to be incriminating by itself but, the absolute reluctance and recalcitrance of Mr. Shaikh

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3505/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

facts relating to this issue are that, according to the AO, details of unsecured loan were found and seized in the form of loose paper ID marked Annexure A1, Page 50 at the residential premises of Mr. Tabrez Shaikh. The AO stated that this sheet contained names of several lenders ... appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR has tacitly stated in the written submissions that the loose paper i.e. document ID marked „A1, Page 50‟, may not be said to be incriminating by itself but, the absolute reluctance and recalcitrance of Mr. Shaikh

DCIT-CC-4(2), Mumbai vs. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3504/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3448/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3447/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3446/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3445/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3444/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3459/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3432/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68Section 69ASection 69C

facts relating to this issue are that, according to the AO, details of unsecured loan were found and seized in the form of loose paper ID marked Annexure A1, Page 50 at the residential premises of Mr. Tabrez Shaikh. The AO stated that this sheet contained names of several lenders ... appearing for the Revenue, supported the order of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR has tacitly stated in the written submissions that the loose paper i.e. document ID marked „A1, Page 50‟, may not be said to be incriminating by itself but, the absolute reluctance and recalcitrance of Mr. Shaikh

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3456/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

form of „asset‟ had escaped assessment. To this, the AO is noted to have stated that, he was in possession of notings found in loose paper marked at Page No. 52 of Annexure A-1 which showed payment to tenants amounting to Rs.55 lacs on 04.05.2012 and Rs.80 lacs ... falls within the inclusive definition of „asset‟ set out in Explanation 2 of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Having perused this loose paper, we however are of the view that, no such acquisition of investment was discernible from the notings found on Page no. 52 of Annexure

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3453/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

form of „asset‟ had escaped assessment. To this, the AO is noted to have stated that, he was in possession of notings found in loose paper marked at Page No. 52 of Annexure A-1 which showed payment to tenants amounting to Rs.55 lacs on 04.05.2012 and Rs.80 lacs ... falls within the inclusive definition of „asset‟ set out in Explanation 2 of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Having perused this loose paper, we however are of the view that, no such acquisition of investment was discernible from the notings found on Page no. 52 of Annexure

Hilton Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3451/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3456/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3455/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3454/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3453/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3452/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3451/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3450/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 3449/Mum/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Smt Sanyogita Nag
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

form of „asset‟ had escaped assessment. To this, the AO is noted to have stated that, he was in possession of notings found in loose paper marked at Page No. 52 of Annexure A-1 which showed payment to tenants amounting to Rs.55 lacs on 04.05.2012 and Rs.80 lacs ... falls within the inclusive definition of „asset‟ set out in Explanation 2 of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Having perused this loose paper, we however are of the view that, no such acquisition of investment was discernible from the notings found on Page no. 52 of Annexure