← 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

Om Prakash Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 9 Now Known As CC-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1591/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1591 & 1590/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2006-07) Om Prakash Kukreja Vs. Acit Bgjc & Associates Llp, Central Circle – 9 Raj Tower, G-1, Alakhnanda, New Delhi Community Centre, New Delhi - 110 065 Pan No. Aakpk 8092 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.05.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2012-13. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

erred in law and on facts by confirming addition to the income of the assessee by considering few entries/ amounts written on loose papers as unexplained loan advanced Amounting to Rs. 54,03,669/- added during the A.Y. 2012-13. Ground No.-5 The Honorable CIT (A) has erred ... facts by confirming addition to the income of the assessee by considering few entries/ amounts written on loose papers as Interest (24% per annum Rs. 12,96,880/- added during the AY 2012-13. ITA Nos.1591 & 1590/Del/2018 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT 4 Ground No.-6 The Honorable

Om Prakash Kukreja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 9 Now Known As CC-18, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 1590/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita Nos. 1591 & 1590/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2006-07) Om Prakash Kukreja Vs. Acit Bgjc & Associates Llp, Central Circle – 9 Raj Tower, G-1, Alakhnanda, New Delhi Community Centre, New Delhi - 110 065 Pan No. Aakpk 8092 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 31.05.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25, Delhi Relating To Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2012-13. 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Both The Parties Submitted That Though The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are For Two Different Assessment Years But The Facts & Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical Except For The Assessment Year & The

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 69Section 69ASection 80C

erred in law and on facts by confirming addition to the income of the assessee by considering few entries/ amounts written on loose papers as unexplained loan advanced Amounting to Rs. 54,03,669/- added during the A.Y. 2012-13. Ground No.-5 The Honorable CIT (A) has erred ... facts by confirming addition to the income of the assessee by considering few entries/ amounts written on loose papers as Interest (24% per annum Rs. 12,96,880/- added during the AY 2012-13. ITA Nos.1591 & 1590/Del/2018 Om Prakash Kukreja vs. ACIT 4 Ground No.-6 The Honorable