Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)

Priti Suresh Purohit ,Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 July, 2025

The TDS made by parties is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee is small contractor and doing business with the help of her husband. Copy of Form 26AS is also placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT in ITA No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025 which is also based on similar search action, wherein the addition under section 69A was deleted. The ld. AR further submits that CBDT in its Instruction No. 286 of 2003 has also instructed it field officer that instead of taking confession, the assessing officer should rely on evidence gathered during search or survey action. The statement per se cannot be treated as evidence unless it is corroborative by other evidence. There is no other evidence except statement of assessee. Such statement is not correct. In the statement it is recorded that the assessee has not filed return of income, however, the assessee filed return of income for assessment year under consideration much prior to search action. The income offered by assessee is supported by TDS deducted by prayer on the payment of contract receipt. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for allowing to submit his short- written synopsis. The ld AR of the assessee filed his written synopsis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priti Suresh Purohit ,Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 July, 2025

The TDS made by parties is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee is small contractor and doing business with the help of her husband. Copy of Form 26AS is also placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT in ITA No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025 which is also based on similar search action, wherein the addition under section 69A was deleted. The ld. AR further submits that CBDT in its Instruction No. 286 of 2003 has also instructed it field officer that instead of taking confession, the assessing officer should rely on evidence gathered during search or survey action. The statement per se cannot be treated as evidence unless it is corroborative by other evidence. There is no other evidence except statement of assessee. Such statement is not correct. In the statement it is recorded that the assessee has not filed return of income, however, the assessee filed return of income for assessment year under consideration much prior to search action. The income offered by assessee is supported by TDS deducted by prayer on the payment of contract receipt. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for allowing to submit his short- written synopsis. The ld AR of the assessee filed his written synopsis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Priti Suresh Purohit ,Mumbai vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 9 July, 2025

The TDS made by parties is duly reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee is small contractor and doing business with the help of her husband. Copy of Form 26AS is also placed on record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of Barkha Kishore Kumar Agarwal vs ACIT in ITA No. 1873, 1874 & 1875/M/2025 which is also based on similar search action, wherein the addition under section 69A was deleted. The ld. AR further submits that CBDT in its Instruction No. 286 of 2003 has also instructed it field officer that instead of taking confession, the assessing officer should rely on evidence gathered during search or survey action. The statement per se cannot be treated as evidence unless it is corroborative by other evidence. There is no other evidence except statement of assessee. Such statement is not correct. In the statement it is recorded that the assessee has not filed return of income, however, the assessee filed return of income for assessment year under consideration much prior to search action. The income offered by assessee is supported by TDS deducted by prayer on the payment of contract receipt. The ld AR of the assessee prayed for allowing to submit his short- written synopsis. The ld AR of the assessee filed his written synopsis on 04.0.2025 again making certain submissions on the issue which was not heard at the time of submissions. To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai, ... vs Jainam Investments, Mumbai on 20 March, 2025

Ltd PCIT vs. Mamta R/TAX Appeal 11.09.2023 9 ITA No.519/Mum/2025 & Co 39/Mum/2025 Jainam Investments Rjivkumar Agarwal No.408 of 2023 (Guj HC) Barkha Ramesh 779/Mum/2020 12.04.2022 Merchant vs ACIT- 16(1) 2 Shreenath Commercial& Pallavi Mayur Gandhi 2251/Mum/2020 12.04.2022 Finance Ltd vs ITO-33(2)(5) Smt. Veena Chaturvedi 1702/Mum/2021 18.09.2023 vs. DCIT (CC) 2(3) Ripu Sudan Kundra vs 2792/Mum/2018 05.01.2021 ITO-3(1)(1) 3 Chirawa Cements Limited Trivikram Singh Toor vs 110/Chd /2021 21.09.2022 PCIT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jainam Investments,Mumbai vs Dcit, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai, ... on 20 March, 2025

Ltd PCIT vs. Mamta R/TAX Appeal 11.09.2023 9 ITA No.519/Mum/2025 & Co 39/Mum/2025 Jainam Investments Rjivkumar Agarwal No.408 of 2023 (Guj HC) Barkha Ramesh 779/Mum/2020 12.04.2022 Merchant vs ACIT- 16(1) 2 Shreenath Commercial& Pallavi Mayur Gandhi 2251/Mum/2020 12.04.2022 Finance Ltd vs ITO-33(2)(5) Smt. Veena Chaturvedi 1702/Mum/2021 18.09.2023 vs. DCIT (CC) 2(3) Ripu Sudan Kundra vs 2792/Mum/2018 05.01.2021 ITO-3(1)(1) 3 Chirawa Cements Limited Trivikram Singh Toor vs 110/Chd /2021 21.09.2022 PCIT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1