PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the case was squarely covered by its previous judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Nanda. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against ITAT orders concerning additions on account of 'NRE Income' and 'unexplained credit'. The Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) had ruled against the Revenue on both counts. The High Court noted the factual finding that the Assessee resided in India for less than 182 days in the relevant years.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the addition on account of 'NRE Income' was justified, given the Assessee's residential status in India for less than 182 days in the relevant previous years.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)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.
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Nanda5 citing352 ITR 611 · HC
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 14. + ITA 280/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. 15. WITH ITA 281/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. WITH 16. + ITA 282/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITA Nos. 280, 281, 282, 283,284 & 289 of 2015 Page 1 of 5 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
(CENTRAL -1), NEW DELffl Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. WITH 17. + ITA 283/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. WITH 18. + ITA 284/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus ITA Nos. 280, 281, 282, 283,284 & 289 of 2015 Page 2 of 5
SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. AND 19. + ITA 289/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL -1), NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates. versus SUDHIR SAREEN Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 06.07.2015 CM No. 7643/2015 (for exemption^ in ITA No. 280/2015 CM No. 7644/2015 (for exemption^ in ITA No. 281/2015 CM No. 7645/2015 (for exemption) in ITA No. 283/2015 CM No. 7646/2015 (for exemption^ in ITA No. 284/2015 CM No. 7750/2015 (for exemption^ in ITA No. 289/2015 1. Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The applications are disposed of. ITA Nos. 280, 281, 282, 283, 284 & 289 of 2015 Page 3 of 5
> ITA Nos. 280/2015.281/2015.282/2015.283/2015.284/2015 & 289/201S 3. These appeals by the Revenue challenge the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 3120-26/Del/2011 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-09. 4. There were two questions that arose before the Assessing Officer. One was regarding the addition on account of 'NRE Income' and the second was regarding addition made on account of 'unexplained credit'. Both were answered against the Revenue by the CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT for the relevant AYs. However, the only ground urged by the Revenue as far as these appeals are concerned is the addition on account of 'NRE income'. 5. Admittedly, the factual finding of the CIT (Appeals) as affirmed by the ITAT is that the Assessee resided in the country for less than 182 days in each of the relevant previous years. 6. Learned counsel on both sides agree that the case is squarely covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Suresh Nanda 352ITR 611 (Del). 7. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed in terms of the aforementioned ITA Nos. 280, 281, 282, 283,284 & 289 of 2015 Page 4 of 5
decision. JULY 06,2015/dn S. MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J ITA Nos. 280, 281, 282,283,284 & 289 of 2015 Page 5 of 5
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026