← All Phrases

“dumb documents”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132946 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1731/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1730/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1700/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

SAFAL ENGINEERS AND REALTIES LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD

ITA 1699/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

VEERA REDDY POSHAM,NALGONDA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1830/Hyd

ITA 1830/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years 2020-2021 & 2022-2023 Veera Reddy Posham, The Acit, Nalgonda – 508 246 Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Telangana. Hyderabad. Telangana. Pan Aijpp0376P (Applicant) (Respondent) -None- िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 428/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

evidence. The corroboration of entries is completely missing in the present case. Therefore, the documents as found are to be considered as dumb documents only, which, on standalone basis, could not sustain the additions as made by Ld. AO. We also concur that the statement made by the assessee

ROHIT AGGARWAL,AMBALA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 427/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

evidence. The corroboration of entries is completely missing in the present case. Therefore, the documents as found are to be considered as dumb documents only, which, on standalone basis, could not sustain the additions as made by Ld. AO. We also concur that the statement made by the assessee

ROHIT AGGARWAL,ROHIT AGGARWAL, AMBALA CITY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, CHADIGARH, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE CHANDIGARH

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 324/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Goel & Sh. Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Meenkashi Vohra (CIT) - Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 153A(1)(b)

evidence. The corroboration of entries is completely missing in the present case. Therefore, the documents as found are to be considered as dumb documents only, which, on standalone basis, could not sustain the additions as made by Ld. AO. We also concur that the statement made by the assessee

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3233/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

section 132(4) were to be disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the excel sheets themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb documents” incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly prepared

GOVIND CORPORATION ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234Section 234BSection 251(2)Section 69A

section 132(4) were to be disregarded or viewed with circumspection, the excel sheets themselves, in the absence of any corroboration, were nothing but “dumb documents” incapable of independent evidentiary value. They were not part of the books of account, bore no authentication, and were admittedly prepared

FAYAZ MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

ITA 1672/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, САFor Respondent: Smt.V Koteshwaramma, Sr.AR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

ITA Nos 1671 and 1672 of 2025 Fayaz Mohammed आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

FAYAZ MOHAMMED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1671/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 69

additions made by the Assessing Officer is not made on any material found during the course of search but on the basis of dumb documents which cannot be upheld. The learned Department Representative also argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer is based on incriminating material found

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1961/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

cash payment by Shri Hitendra Patel, and the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The Assessing Officer held that the impounded documents were not dumb documents, that they directly related to the transaction in question, and that the purchasers had clearly admitted payment of on-money. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated ... third party, which neither belonged to the assessee nor were in his handwriting or possession. It was submitted that such loose sheets are dumb documents and cannot form the sole basis of addition without independent corroborative evidence. The learned counsel submitted that that the registered sale deeds did not record

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1960/AHD/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Satish Solanki, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

cash payment by Shri Hitendra Patel, and the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The Assessing Officer held that the impounded documents were not dumb documents, that they directly related to the transaction in question, and that the purchasers had clearly admitted payment of on-money. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated ... third party, which neither belonged to the assessee nor were in his handwriting or possession. It was submitted that such loose sheets are dumb documents and cannot form the sole basis of addition without independent corroborative evidence. The learned counsel submitted that that the registered sale deeds did not record

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TANISHQ BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8105/MUM/2025[2024-2025]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-2025

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

evidentiary gap required in law. 20. With respect to the loose sheets and coded papers, the Ld. AR submitted that these are, at best, dumb documents, loose sheets not forming part of regular books of account. He emphasised that jurisprudence is well settled that loose papers, scribblings, rough notings

TANISHQ BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CC 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5952/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

evidentiary gap required in law. 20. With respect to the loose sheets and coded papers, the Ld. AR submitted that these are, at best, dumb documents, loose sheets not forming part of regular books of account. He emphasised that jurisprudence is well settled that loose papers, scribblings, rough notings

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Showing 1–20 of 946 · Page 1 of 48

...
dumb documents — 946 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax