VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 1077/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-1143 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) were not applicable as the contract for share acquisition was completed before the effective date. Regarding the unsecured loan, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, and the AO had not controverted the contentions.

What were the facts?

The appeals concerned additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on a search operation that revealed incriminating documents related to the acquisition of a paper company and unsecured loans. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and whether additions made under Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 68 were justified based on the evidence provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 68,Section 153C,Section 17

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi

Before : Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11

Shri Vijay Agarwal, C-169, vs. Income-tax Officer, Pushpanjali enclave, Pritampura, Ward 48(5), New Delhi Delhi (PAN- AFSPA8080P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Shri Raj Gupta, C-169, Pushpanjali vs. Income-tax Officer, enclave, Pritampura, Delhi Ward 48(5), New Delhi (PAN- AGSOG2661F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Smt. Sheela Devi, 1756, Nai Basti vs. Income-tax Officer, Naya Bazar, Delhi Ward 47(1), New Delhi (PAN- AAAPD3717F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Shri Manoj Agarwal, 1756, Nai Basti, vs. Income-tax Officer, Naya Bazar, Delhi Ward 48(2), New Delhi (PAN- ADCPA1665J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

ITA Nos. 1077 to 1081/Del/2019 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Shri Manish Agarwal, C-169, vs. Income-tax Officer, Pushpanjali enclave, Pritampura, Ward 48(5), New Delhi Delhi (PAN- AEWPA7232G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by S/Sh. Rajeev Saxena, R.P. Mall, Advocates S/Sh. Ajit Kumar Jha and Shyam Sunder, ARs Respondent by Sh. P.V. Gupta, Sr

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →