← All Phrases

“admission of additional evidence”

AppealsRule 46ARule 46A1,576 judgments

The decision most relied on for admission of additional evidence is CBI v. V.C. Shukla (3 SCC 410), cited in 442 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on admission of additional evidence

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.

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.

Shri Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi v. CIT
174 Taxmann 466 · 2008 · High Court
225
citing judgments

Liability cannot be fastened solely on the basis of a self-incriminating sworn statement made during a search, as such statements are not conclusive and require corroborative evidence.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT
231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court
186
citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

CIT v. Manish Build Well (P) Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 27 · 2011 · High Court
120
citing judgments

The CIT(A) must strictly comply with Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules for admitting additional evidence, ensuring all prescribed conditions exist, reasons are recorded, and reasonable opportunity is provided to the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Sunil Aggarwal
64 Taxmann.com 107 · 2015 · High Court
113
citing judgments

An addition of an unexplained cash credit based solely on an assessee's retracted admission made during a search and seizure operation is not justified, especially if the assessee later provides verifiable explanations.

CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram
282 ITR 259 · 2006 · High Court
108
citing judgments

Seized loose sheets or unsigned documents discovered during a search operation possess admissible evidentiary value and can form the basis for income additions if corroborated by external evidence, such as matching payments, business records, or corroborative statements.

CIT v. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd.
351 ITR 57 · 2013 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The Tribunal has the discretion to admit additional evidence, even if filed by a party, when it deems it necessary for proper adjudication and to achieve substantial justice. This power can be exercised in the interest of justice.

Judgments citing admission of additional evidence

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 668/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

Ministry of Tourism vide certificate, dated 14.12.2021 and, thus, it was stated that the assessee fulfilled all the condition and requested for admission of additional evidence. On this issue, the remand report of the Assessing Officer was called for and the Ld. Assessing Officer has stated that since four star

Khanna Infrabuild Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 663/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 153ASection 35ASection 69

Ministry of Tourism vide certificate, dated 14.12.2021 and, thus, it was stated that the assessee fulfilled all the condition and requested for admission of additional evidence. On this issue, the remand report of the Assessing Officer was called for and the Ld. Assessing Officer has stated that since four star

Agarwal Sponge & Energy Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 59/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.59/Hyd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Agarwal Sponge & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Energy (P) Ltd., Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaeca8680P (Respondent) (Appellant) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: This Appeal Is Filed By Agarwal Sponge & Energy (P) Ltd. (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad (“Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 31.08.2017 For A.Y.2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Grounds: "1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Dated 31/8/2017 Is Contrary To Law & Facts.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: : Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 43

before the Ld.CIT(A) as enclosure on page No.24 of the petition under Rule 46A filed with the Ld.CIT(A) for the admission of additional evidence. However, without verifying the same the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the claim of the assessee. Hence the Ld. AR requested the Bench to delete

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni vs. T Rama Subba Reddy, Adoni

ITA 1133/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Appeals). The assessee filed the material papers in the form of Paper Book containing 79 pages. A petition requesting for admission of additional evidences consisting of 35 pages (placed at pages No.80 to 115 of the paper book) was also filed. The assessee requests the Hon'ble ITAT to kindly

Hemant Jivan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 196/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Wagle, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 1Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Sources during the course of proceedings and hence the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. We have heard both the parties on admission of additional evidences. In our opinion these additional evidences are very much necessary for proper adjudication of the case and the reason explained by the assessee

Banur Brother, Patiala vs. ITO-Ward-1, Ambala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as and by way of remand to Ld

ITA 772/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 253Section 270ASection 69A

notices received during the assessment proceedings, the submissions and documents were submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) along with an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 2.3.2 Thereafter, Ld. CIT(A) sent these documents to Ld. AO for a remand report

Swami Rameshwar Anandagiri Purna, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1) Int Taxation, Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 395/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 5(2)Section 69

AO/DRP was that documents are not apostilled. Confirmations and promissory note were also submitted before lower authorities. The assessee now submitted application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 filing along with the apostilled copy of confirmation and transfer invoice. These confirmations

Victory Construction Company, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 350/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Victory Construction Company, Income Tax Officer, 7, Amrapali Apartments, Ward-1(3)(5), Nr. Usmanpura Railway Vs Ahmedabad Crossing, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380014 [Pan No.:Aahfv8333J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 68

before the hearing of the appeal.” A.Y. 2012-13 3 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences which are as follows:- Sr. No. Particulars of Additional Evidences 1 A copy of acknowledgement and statement of income of the appellant

Shaheen Frozen Foods, Balapur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 346/NAG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 44ASection 68

assessee has not filed details before the Assessing Officer. However, the details were filed before the learned CIT(A) along with petition for admission of additional evidence and further submitted that the learned CIT(A), without considering the additional evidences, simply confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer

Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri Educational and Charitable Trust, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 585/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.585/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kamalam Sambandam Alagiri The Ito (Exemptions), Educational & Charitable Trust, Ward-2, 069, Thirupaninatham, Chennai. Ennanagaram & Post, Chidambaram Taluk, Cuddalore-604 001. [Pan: Aabtk 6500 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishnan Ramaswamy
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)

against action of the Ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal only on the ground that the assessee had not filed any petition for admission of additional evidence. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is a public Charitable Trust registered u/s.12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short ... course of appellate proceedings which does not explain the case of the assessee. However, no petition has been filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence justifying and explaining as to under which Clause of Rule 46A(1), the assessee's case is covered

M/S. Mobile Corner, Hubli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

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

ITA 662/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 115BSection 69A

before us. M/s. Mobile Corner, Hubli Page 4 of 5 2.2 Before us, ld. A.R. filed additional evidences along with a petition for admission of additional evidences as follows: 1. Partnership Deed dated 30/06/2003. 2. Unsigned Reconstituted Deed of Partnership dated 01/04/2012. 3. K VAT Registration Certificate dated 23/01/2007 ... cause for filing the appeal belatedly before NFAC as the assessee was defunct during this period. 3. The ld. D.R. strongly opposed the admission of additional evidences. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. These additional evidences are very necessary to decide

Vijay Yeshwant Pangam, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(3)(7), Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4653/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4653/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vijay Yeshwant Pangam Vs. Ito, Ward 34(3)(7) 25-C, B-Wing, Flat No. 304, Kautilya Bhavan Rmms Sector C-41 To C-43 Gokul Dham, Goregaon-E G-Block, Bkc Maharashtra-400 063. Bandra East Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Apepp6032J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 69A

whole appeal back to the file of the learned CIT – A with a direction to the assessee to make an application for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A, the learned CIT – A must pass a speaking order either admitting or not admitting those evidence. If he admits, a necessary

Amc Research Group Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 299/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Amc Research Group Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 108, New Friends Colony, Ward-1(1), Taimur Nagar, New Delhi-110065. New Delhi. Pan-Aabca0035B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sunil Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that an application seeking admission of additional evidences has been filed on behalf of the assessee. He submitted that these evidences are necessary and relevant for adjudication of the dispute ... other hand, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended the admission of additional evidences. 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders

M/S. Alang Metal Exim Pvt. Limited., Bhavnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2329/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. The Acit Shop No.3, Arpan Flat Vs Circle-1 Shishuvihar Circle, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 001 (Gujarat) Pan:Aaeca 9651 Q ….. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13 /06/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20-9-2018 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–6, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”] In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7,00,00,000/- Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Disallowance Of Rs.3,30,000/- Out Of Loading & Unloading Charges Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) In His Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. M/S.Alang Metal Exim Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

cause from producing before the AO these documents and reasons were beyond control of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) forwarded the application for admission of additional evidence to the AO. The AO in his remand report stated that since the case is not covered by exceptional circumstances as mentioned

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corp Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 441/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing’’. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in all three appeals with regard to conference/meeting expenses and sponsorship meetings ... well as before the learned CIT(A), are now available. Hence, in the light of averments made in the petition he prayed for admission of additional evidence filed in the form of paper books for each year. & ITA No.441/CHNY/2024 4. In support of petition for additional evidence, Ld. Counsel referred

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1311/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing’’. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in all three appeals with regard to conference/meeting expenses and sponsorship meetings ... well as before the learned CIT(A), are now available. Hence, in the light of averments made in the petition he prayed for admission of additional evidence filed in the form of paper books for each year. & ITA No.441/CHNY/2024 4. In support of petition for additional evidence, Ld. Counsel referred

Cook India Medical Devices Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1310 & 1311/Chny/2023 & Ita No.441/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-2017) M/S. Cook India Medical Devices Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Plot No.22, Sp, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 1(2) Kochar Jade, Chennai. Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccc 7628P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Mukundan, Irs, Jcit.

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mukundan, IRS, JCIT

appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing’’. 3. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submitted a petition for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 in all three appeals with regard to conference/meeting expenses and sponsorship meetings ... well as before the learned CIT(A), are now available. Hence, in the light of averments made in the petition he prayed for admission of additional evidence filed in the form of paper books for each year. & ITA No.441/CHNY/2024 4. In support of petition for additional evidence, Ld. Counsel referred

Ficus Mercantile Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 1131/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ficus Mercantile Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward 9(2), B-89 Ground Floor, New Delhi. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-1100 17 Pan : Aafcs4215B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

grounds on merits and has also pleaded that the impugned assessment order was passed without sufficient opportunity of hearing. Further, an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 39 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 is filed. In regard to which learned authorized representative has submitted that the business ... deducted.  Confirmed Ledger Account of each party 63-100 along with PAN details for preceding and subsequent year. 5 Application for admission of additional evidences 101-105 under Rule 29 & 30 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 6. Learned authorized representative has further pointed out that there is also an error

Techman Buildwell Private Lmited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-25(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 737/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before the CIT(A), the Appellant had filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence seeking permission to place on record the following material as additional evidence: (i) Confirmation and affidavit of Ms. Sonia Chikara; (ii) Confirmation and atidavit ... Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos.- 1618/Del/2017 & 737/Del/2020 Techman Buildwell Private Limited. 5.2 It is submitted that admission of additional evidence is vital to decide the issue and its admission would not cause any prejudice to the Revenue, rather, it would advance the cause of justice. Reliance is placed

Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed with the consequences following as per the

ITA 1618/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Gs Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Arta Trana Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 68

admitting additional evidences. 5. It is submitted that before the CIT(A), the Appellant had filed an application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence seeking permission to place on record the following material as additional evidence: (i) Confirmation and affidavit of Ms. Sonia Chikara; (ii) Confirmation and atidavit ... Page 5 of 12 ITA Nos.- 1618/Del/2017 & 737/Del/2020 Techman Buildwell Private Limited. 5.2 It is submitted that admission of additional evidence is vital to decide the issue and its admission would not cause any prejudice to the Revenue, rather, it would advance the cause of justice. Reliance is placed