← All Phrases

“voluntary admission”

Search & SeizureSection 132(4)Section 132(4)73 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI vs. SINGHVI DEVELOPERS , VELLORE

In the result, both appeals of Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 974/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.648/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Singhvi Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Income Tax, Ambur 635 803. Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. [Pan:Acdfs5183R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.974/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Singhvi Developers, Income Tax, No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Central Circle 3(3), Ambur 635 803. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

seized in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the appellant had also made voluntary admission after two months vide his sworn statement dated 29.12.2018 for the same amount by furnishing the person/entity-wise unaccounted income. Thus, the above cited decision

SINGHVI DEVELOPERS,AMBUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, both appeals of Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 648/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.648/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Singhvi Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Income Tax, Ambur 635 803. Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. [Pan:Acdfs5183R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.974/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Singhvi Developers, Income Tax, No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Central Circle 3(3), Ambur 635 803. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

seized in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, the appellant had also made voluntary admission after two months vide his sworn statement dated 29.12.2018 for the same amount by furnishing the person/entity-wise unaccounted income. Thus, the above cited decision

BANGAR RAJU PENMETSA,BHIMAVARAM vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1178/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 250

during the course of search further confirms that the seized documents vide serial no. 1 to 71 of Annexure A/PBR/01 belong to him. This voluntary admission, read together with the seized document, strengthens the case of the Department that the assessee was fully aware of the transaction, and no fabricated

KARUTURI VEERA VENKATA RAVI PRASAD,KOVVUR MANDAL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AAYAKARBHAVAN, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

appellant's father Sri K. Venkata Rao and HUF. The Id. AO has also failed to appreciate the fact that there are voluntary admission during the course of search proceedings. 4. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that though the appellant and his family members

KARUTURI VEERA VENKATA RAVI PRASAD,KOVVUR MANDAL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 796/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

appellant's father Sri K. Venkata Rao and HUF. The Id. AO has also failed to appreciate the fact that there are voluntary admission during the course of search proceedings. 4. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that though the appellant and his family members

KARUTURI VEERA VENKATA RAVI PRASAD,KOVVUR MANDAL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 795/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 153A

appellant's father Sri K. Venkata Rao and HUF. The Id. AO has also failed to appreciate the fact that there are voluntary admission during the course of search proceedings. 4. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate the fact that though the appellant and his family members

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI,

ITA 1655/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1654/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, THIRUVANNAMALAI

ITA 1653/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

ITA 1652/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CA
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, TIRUVANNAMALAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1651/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ETHIRAJULU VAJRAVEL KUMARAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 1650/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

taxmann.com 448\n(SC) submitted that penalty proceedings are not dependent on\nthe voluntary disclosure of income and that penalty is leviable\nnotwithstanding the voluntary admission of concealed income by\nthe assessee. Placing further reliance on the findings recorded in\nthe penalty order, the Ld.DR vehemently contended that

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449 emphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined, additions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court later upheld this view. 7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally held that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 710/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449\nemphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined,\nadditions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court later upheld this view.\n7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally\nheld that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 709/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449\nemphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined,\nadditions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court later upheld this view.\n7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally\nheld that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 708/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449\nemphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined,\nadditions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court later upheld this view.\n\n7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally\nheld that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449\nemphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined,\nadditions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court later upheld this view.\n7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally\nheld that ... luxury cars used for business purposes, citing branding and marketing. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed these expenses and depreciation based on the assessee's voluntary admission during search proceedings that the cars were not used for business. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance.", "held": "The Tribunal held that

JAYARAMA REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRLCE-2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 705/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

DCIT reported in 52 taxmann.com 449\nemphasized that even if supporting documents are not examined,\nadditions can still be sustained on the basis of voluntary admission. The\nHon'ble Supreme Court later upheld this view.\n7.9 Based on the above facts and judicial guidance, the AO finally\nheld that

ASHU RANI,YAMUNA NAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER APPEAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 683/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Addition, Holding That The Assessee Had Not Satisfactorily Explained The Source Of The On-Money Investment.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Lamba, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Surinder Kaur Waraich, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual)
Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 69

thereby prevented the Revenue from probing deeper and bringing further evidence on record. Thus, the interplay between the absence of corroboration and the voluntary admission must be carefully weighed when deciding the sustainability of the addition under Section 69 of the Act. 7.2 It is further noted from the categorical

SURESH KUMAR REDDY KRISHNAPURAM,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 536/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

evidentiary value\nwas adequately highlighted by the AO, who highlighted: instances of\nsuppressed receipts, cash transactions, and discrepancies between\nrecorded and actual turnovers. Further, voluntary admission of\nsuppressed income by the appellant, further contradict the\nappellants claim.\nThus, it is evident from the assessment order that AO has followed ... appellant voluntarily disclosed additional\nincome of Rs.60 crores during the search proceedings,\nacknowledging discrepancies in the maintenance of accounts and\ncash transactions. Such voluntary admission further validates AO’s\nreliance on the seized material to identify suppressed turnover.\nv) The appellant’s argument that the seized material reflected “general\ndiscrepancies

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4