← All Phrases

“Section 132(44)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(44)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 132(44) is CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (44 ITR 891), cited in 278 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 132(44)

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry
44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court
278
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

44 (Del) 6. PCIT v. Hitech Residency P Ltd.
96 Taxmann.com 402 · 2018 · High Court
37
citing judgments

An addition under section 68 cannot be sustained if the assessee has produced documents like PAN, confirmation, and bank statements to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of a loan creditor.

CIT v. Banjara 44. Developers & Constructions (P.) Ltd.
117 Taxmann.com 747 · 2020 · High Court
24
citing judgments

An assessee engaged in construction of flats, consistently following the project completion method of accounting, can continue to use this method if it has been accepted by revenue authorities in the past, and the Assessing Officer cannot unilaterally change it to an estimation basis.

Para 44 & 45 and CIT-Central I v. Indo Arab Air Services
64 Taxmann.com 257 · 2015 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Reopening of assessment under Section 147 and issuance of notice under Section 148 are unsustainable if based on insufficient reasons or without proper application of mind, especially when the reassessment order itself is found to be unsustainable.

Judgments citing Section 132(44)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S Radaan Media Works India Limited, Teynampet

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2136/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2136/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Acit, M/S Radaan Media Works Central Circle 2(1), India Limited, Chennai-600034 14 Jayammal Road, Chennai -600018 [Pan: Aabcr3815L] (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(44)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153CSection 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार

ACIT Central Circle 1(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

third party search but not belonging to the appellant, this presumption will not be applicable unless corroborated by other evidence. Presumption available under section 132(44) can be drawn against the person in whose case search is authorized and from whose possession or control books of account, diary or documents

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Kalyanee Fortune Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

third party search but not belonging to the appellant, this presumption will not be applicable unless corroborated by other evidence. Presumption available under section 132(44) can be drawn against the person in whose case search is authorized and from whose possession or control books of account, diary or documents

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi vs. Shri Krishna Mohan Kalburgi, Hubballi

ITA 1136/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sheshadri Chalapati, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 10Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Priyansi Corporation, Dist Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

ITA 408/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250

contained certain jottings. The Tribunal held that the jottings in diary neither represented books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under section 132(44) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. • In the Case Of MV Mathew ... contained certain jottings. The Tribunal held that the jottings in diary neither represented books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under section 132(44) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. • In the Case Of MV Mathew

Champalal Company, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

ITA 405/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others 26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT

Oswal Petrochem, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

ITA 402/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250

contained certain jottings. The Tribunal held that the jottings in diary neither represented books of account nor any document and, therefore, presumption under section 132(44) was not available and the addition made on the basis of the said jottings was deleted. • In the Case Of MV Mathew