URMILA GAMBHIR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITA/12/2006HC DelhiDLHC01060956200623 December 2009Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL19 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition on account of unexplained investment in land. However, regarding the addition for jewellery, the High Court found that the Tribunal had not properly considered the assessee's explanation and remitted this issue back.

What were the facts?

During a search, loose papers including Annexure A-6 were seized. The Assessing Officer interpreted a loose sheet as representing a significant investment in agricultural land, while the assessee and the company denied this. Jewellery found was also a point of contention.

What were the issues?

Whether a loose paper found during a search can be treated as evidence of undisclosed income, and whether the assessee's explanation regarding jewellery ownership was adequately considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 158BC,Section 158B(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)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.

ITA No. 12/2006 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ ITA 12/2006

Reserved on: 4th, November,2009

Date of Decision: 23rd December, 2009

SMT. URMILA GAMBHIR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI SUBHASH GAMBHIR 1/14, WEST PATEL NAGAR, NEW DELHI-8 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Prem Nath Monga, Adv.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv.

% CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

1.

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

1.

The Appellants are the legal heirs of late Sh. Subhash Gambhir who was the assessee in this case. He was one of the Promoter Directors of M/s. D.D. Industrial Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →