HOTEL SURYA VILAS PALACE,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE, BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the reference to the DVO under Section 142A requires the rejection of books of accounts prior to the reference, as per Supreme Court decisions. Since the record did not clearly establish this sequence, the matter was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's reference to the DVO, rejection of books of accounts, and addition to income. The primary issue was whether the AO could refer the matter to the DVO without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts.
What were the issues?
Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in referring the matter to the DVO without first rejecting the assessee's books of accounts. The validity of the addition made based on the DVO's report was also questioned.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 142(2A),Section 142A,Section 145(3),Section 69,Section 69B,Section 56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(6)Show listHide 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.
- Sargam Cinema v. CIT172 citing328 ITR 513 · 2010 · SC
- CIT v. Pratap Singh Amrosingh Rajendra Singh43 citing200 ITR 788 · 1993 · HC
- CIT v. Hotel Joshi37 citing242 ITR 478 · 2000 · HC
- Dr. Raghuvendra Singh v. CIT17 citing49 Taxmann.com 544 · 2014
- Prithavi Raj Bohra v. ITO13 citing150 TTJ 57 · 2012 · ITAT
- CIT v. Bhavani Shankar Vyas7 citing311 ITR 8 · 2009 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.738/JP/15
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Hotel Surya Vilas Palace, Vill. Jatoli 1. Ghana, NH-11 Agra Road, Bharatpur. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle, Bharatpur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.738/JP/2015) 6.
ITA No. 738/JP/15 M/s Hotel Surya Vilas Palace Vs. ACIT, Alwar.
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज त्महपेजतंत.
More judgments on Section 142(2A)
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), MohaliITA 636/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 635/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 634/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Punjab Urban Planning and Development… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle…ITA 633/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Trinity Infraventures Limited, New Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 788/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2010-11
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026