DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GANPATI FINCAP PVT LTD., NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the marriage was claimed by the daughter in a complaint, and Section 56(2) of the Act exempts such expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities lacked merit and was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against an addition made by the lower authorities on account of expenses related to his daughter's marriage. The addition was based on a complaint filed by the daughter alleging atrocities by her husband and in-laws.
What were the issues?
Whether the expenditure on a daughter's marriage, when claimed by the daughter in a complaint, is exempt under Section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act and thus cannot be added to the assessee's income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Indore’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071970596(1), dated 08.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It is noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the sum of Rs.21 lakhs as spend by the assessee/appellant on the occasion of his daughter’s marriage performed in the relevant financial year. Learned departmental representative’s case therefore is that the impugned addition has been made in light of a complaint filed by the assessee’s daughter herself before the police authorities alleging her husband and in- laws to have committed atrocities after solemnization of her marriage.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that no such complaint had been made by the assessee wherein he had ever admitted any such expenditure before the police authorities. It is reiterated that his daughter in fact had filed the original complaint alleging an expenditure of Rs. 21 lakhs on the occasion of the marriage which itself exempt under section 56(2) of the Act. This tribunal therefore finds no merit in the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities in the assessee’s hands since already covered in the foregoing specific provision. Deleted accordingly.
More judgments on Section 56(2)
- Pramod Dwivedi, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-1(2), RaipurITA 597/RPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Nitin Santosh Singh, Mumbai vs Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal ChamberITA 5261/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur vs Income Tax Officer 2(4), JabalpurITA 67/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 66/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Jabalpur Development Authority, Jabalpur vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…ITA 65/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- Kundan Patel vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Pacific Export vs. The State Of Madhya PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Kashiram Fuels Lole Propritorship Firm Through Proprietor Swati vs. Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 13 Oct 2026