← All Phrases

“jewellery found during search”

Search & SeizureSection 132Section 132146 judgments

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel who was not a partner and also retracted his statement. The appellant submitted that the Jewellery found during search by GST department does not prove that it was for unaccounted job work. The appellant also submitted that the job work estimated

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel who was not a partner and also retracted his statement. The appellant submitted that the Jewellery found during search by GST department does not prove that it was for unaccounted job work. The appellant also submitted that the job work estimated

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

basis of Shri Bharat Kumar Patel who was not a partner and also retracted his statement. The appellant submitted that the Jewellery found during search by GST department does not prove that it was for unaccounted job work. The appellant also submitted that the job work estimated

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7913/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7912/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7911/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7910/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

HEMANT DAHYALAL BHATT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2012–13 to 2016–17 are allowed, and appeals for assessment years 2017–18 and 2018–19 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7907/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 144Section 153ASection 24

various assessment years, including additions relating to medical allowance, dividend income, long term capital gains, short term capital gains, housing loan interest, and jewellery found during search, are summarized in the following analytical table: AY AY AY AY AY AY AY Asst. Year

SHUCHI AGARWAL,C/O BK KAPUR AND COMPANY vs. ACIT,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3922/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2022-23]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

erred in law in sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged unexplained investment u/s 69A (jewellery found during search) for Rs.9,10,926/- which are ipso facto based on mere surmises, conjectures and presumptions and deserves to be deleted. 3. That on the facts

POOJA AGGARWAL,PANCHKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, ITA No.1021/Chandi/2025 stand partly allowed

ITA 1027/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1021/CHANDI/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24) | Sh. Anup Kumar Aggarwal House No.218, Sector-10 Panchkula – 134113 | बनाम / Vs. | ACIT(Central) Shimla 171001 | |---|---|---| | स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. | ADJPK-5842-L | | | (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) | : | (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) | & 2. आयकर अपीलसं./ ITA No.1027/CHANDI/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2023-24) | Ms. Pooja Agga

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

Weight 1. Jewellery Found 3011.150 Grams 2. Jewellery from Yes Bank Locker 15.050 Grams 3. SBI Gold Loan Jewellery 1473.000 Grams Total Jewellery found during search (a) 4499.20 Grams Less: Jewellery as supported by Documents 4. Gift Deed of Shyama Devi 500.000 Grams 5. Tanishq gold jewellery Bills dated

ANUP KUMAR AGGARWAL,PANCKULA vs. ACIT(CENTRAL) SHIMLA, SHIMLA

In the result, ITA No.1021/Chandi/2025 stand partly allowed

ITA 1021/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) a/w Shri Lovesh BansalFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69A

Weight 1. Jewellery Found 3011.150 Grams 2. Jewellery from Yes Bank Locker 15.050 Grams 3. SBI Gold Loan Jewellery 1473.000 Grams Total Jewellery found during search (a) 4499.20 Grams Less: Jewellery as supported by Documents 4. Gift Deed of Shyama Devi 500.000 Grams 5. Tanishq gold jewellery Bills dated

MEETABEN HITENDRAKUMAR PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1927/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 250

arose on account of common search action conducted u/s.132 of the Act on the assessees. The addition, it was pointed out, pertained to jewellery found during search, the source of which remained unexplained. The entire jewellery found, it was contended was taxed 50-50% on substantive basis in the hands ... other hand, stated that except for making oral statements in this regard the assessee had produced no evidence corroborating his contention that jewellery found during search included that belonging to his relatives. 9. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, we find merit in the contention made

HITENDRAKUMAR CHIMANLAL PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1926/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 250

arose on account of common search action conducted u/s.132 of the Act on the assessees. The addition, it was pointed out, pertained to jewellery found during search, the source of which remained unexplained. The entire jewellery found, it was contended was taxed 50-50% on substantive basis in the hands ... other hand, stated that except for making oral statements in this regard the assessee had produced no evidence corroborating his contention that jewellery found during search included that belonging to his relatives. 9. Having heard the contentions of both the parties, we find merit in the contention made

JIGNA KUNDAN BHATT,VIRAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5265/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Cen. Cir. 1(1), Jigna Kundan Bhatt R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Plot No. 277, Kundan Pratistha Bhavan, M. Mansion, Agashi Road, Vs. K. Road, Mumbai- Virar (W), Dist-Thane, 400 020 Thane, Maharashtra- 401303 Pan/Gir No. Afdpb3867Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.12.2025

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

same as additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 10. In respect of jewellery, the assessee reiterated that the jewellery found during search was family jewellery belonging to various family members and relied upon CBDT Instruction No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. A detailed explanation identifying ownership among

ACIT-CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. PUNEET AGARWAL, AGRA

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

ITA 338/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

appreciated the fact that no one to one matching was done by the assessee with the VDIS jewellery for vis-à-vis jewellery found during search. 45. On the other hand, Ld AR submitted as under: CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 a). During the course of search, the following statements were

ACIT-CIRCEL-2(1)(1), AGRA vs. MAYANK AGRAWAL, AGRA

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

ITA 336/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

appreciated the fact that no one to one matching was done by the assessee with the VDIS jewellery for vis-à-vis jewellery found during search. 45. On the other hand, Ld AR submitted as under: CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 a). During the course of search, the following statements were

VISHWAMBHAR DAYAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 330/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)

appreciated the fact that no one to one matching was done by the assessee with the VDIS jewellery for vis-à-vis jewellery found during search. 45. On the other hand, Ld AR submitted as under: CO Nos.04, 03 & 05/Agr/2025 a). During the course of search, the following statements were

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

gram amounting to Rs.29,05,610/- of jewellery is not being explained in the books of accounts. Out of the total jewellery found during search, the ‘A’ submitted that only 9,142.8 gms of gold jewellery 199.38 carats of diamonds found at her parents residence to have belonged

Showing 1–20 of 146 · Page 1 of 8

...
jewellery found during search — 146 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax