109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

293 ITR 43High Court2007#309 most cited

What is 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

SMC Share Brokers Ltd. · CIT vs SMC Share Stock Brokers · CIT vs S M Aggarwal · 293 ITR 43 · 288 ITR 345 · copy paste assessment · appraisal report · investigation wing · AO · independent investigation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 132Section 153ASection 69CSection 153CSection 147Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharessection 115adsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 60section 153a proceedingssection 63onus of proofsection 2(14)(iii)section 158bbsection 269t

Judgments citing 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 790/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ns of s. 69C- Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by its employees in respect of proposed expenditure-There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation- Additions not sustainable CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) – Held that – "In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A-28 р. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 22.5 lacs on interest and eamed interest income of Rs. 3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document. The relevant finding…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 789/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ns of s. 69C- Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by its employees in respect of proposed expenditure-There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation- Additions not sustainable CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) – Held that – "In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A-28 р. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 22.5 lacs on interest and eamed interest income of Rs. 3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document. The relevant finding…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 788/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ns of s. 69C- Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by its employees in respect of proposed expenditure-There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation- Additions not sustainable CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) – Held that – "In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A-28 р. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 22.5 lacs on interest and eamed interest income of Rs. 3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document. The relevant finding…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 787/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…ns of s. 69C- Assessee explained that the said entries represented estimates made by its employees in respect of proposed expenditure-There is no evidence on record to rebut/controvert the said explanation- Additions not sustainable CIT Vs. S M Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) – Held that – "In this case the department seized documents "Annexure A-28 р. 15, - gives the details of certain handwritten monetary transactions which shows that the assessee had given a loan of Rs. 22.5 lacs on interest and eamed interest income of Rs. 3.55 lacs on it. The Tribunal hold this document as dumb document. The relevant finding…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. -4, Surat vs. Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 223/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 (Ay: 2016-17 & 2019-20) (Physical Hearing) D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee D.C.I.T., Shree Kuberji Textile Deck, Central Circle-4, 2Nd Floor, Shree Kuberji Corporate Vs. Surat. House, Begumpura, Nr. Khndaa Kuva Road, Surat-395002. Pan No. Acsfs 4939 A Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 292CSection 69B

…). To support his various contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following case laws: IT(SS)A No. 63 & 64/Srt/2023 & ITA 223/Srt/2023 DCIT Vs Shree Kuberji Textile Deck (1) CIT Vs Maulikumar K Shah 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (2) CIT Vs S. M. Aggrawala 293 ITR 43 (Del HC) (3) Jayantilal Patel Vs ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (4) S.K. Gupta Vs DCIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Delhi Trib) 532 (5) Atul Kumar Jain Vs DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del Trib) (6) Pooja Bhatt Vs ACIT (2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum Trib) (7) ITO Vs Shri Rajkumar Birla ITA NO. 934/944/945/Hyd/2012 (Hyd Trib) (8) Amar N Shah (1997) 6 ITD 560 (9) Shed Akshay Pushpavad…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 375/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…- “64. The contention of the learned DR that since Shri R. K. Miglani was related to the member distilleries of UPDA, therefore it was not necessary to allow cross examination is not acceptable. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mr. S.N. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 has held as under: “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt. Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the conclusion that the entries belong to the transactions of the assessed. This statement made by Smt. Sarla Gupta, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 374/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…- “64. The contention of the learned DR that since Shri R. K. Miglani was related to the member distilleries of UPDA, therefore it was not necessary to allow cross examination is not acceptable. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mr. S.N. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 has held as under: “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt. Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the conclusion that the entries belong to the transactions of the assessed. This statement made by Smt. Sarla Gupta, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against…

Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as above

ITA 641/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd. The Dcit 6Th Floor, Kanchanjunga Circle 7(1), Building New Delhi 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.A. Sh. R. K. Kapoor F. C. A. Department By: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing .06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 1. The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against Orders Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Vide The Common Order Dated 22.09.2014 For The A. Y. 2004-05 & A. Y. 2005-06 (I.E., Appeal Nos. 409 To 410/13-14/1560 To 1561) Appeal Relating To A. Y. 2006-07, Is Against Order Dated 07.12.2011 (Appeal No. 419/08- 09/118) For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. In All These Appeals Identical Grounds Of Appeals Have Been Raised Against Certain Common Issues On The Additions 1

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, F.C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Dilip Singh Kothari CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 69C

…- “64. The contention of the learned DR that since Shri R. K. Miglani was related to the member distilleries of UPDA, therefore it was not necessary to allow cross examination is not acceptable. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mr. S.N. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 has held as under: “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt. Sarla Aggarwal, daughter of the assessed while arriving at the conclusion that the entries belong to the transactions of the assessed. This statement made by Smt. Sarla Gupta, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…n point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislation scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity.” E. Reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal, 293 ITR 43 (Delhi), in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary, 296 ITR 619 (Delhi), decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ajanta Footcare (India) (P.) Ltd. 84 taxmann.com 109 (Cal.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 379 ITR 160 (Bom.) in support of the proposit…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 629/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 628/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sbharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 627/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Prem Bhutani, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 28Section 32Section 34Section 69A

…o conclusive decision can be drawn from such jottings for computing the income of the assessee. The Reliance for the proposition that such jottings by themselves would not constitute income which has been declared in the judicial decisions CIT vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi), CIT vs, Girish Chaudhary 296 ITR 619 (Delhi), CIT vs. D.K. Gupta 308 ITR 230 (Delhi). The relevant observations made in the case of CIT Vs. S M Agarwal 293 ITR 43 (Delhi) is as under: 8 ITA. 429/Del/2020 Prem Bhutani vs. DCIT “11. In the present case the Assessing Officer has placed reliance on the statement of Smt.Sarla Aggarwal, d…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…1 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91 TTJ (Delhi) 938; - Pr. CIT v. Ajanta Footcare (India) (P.) Ltd. [20171 84 taxmann.com 109fCal.): - Dy. CIT v. C, Krishna Yadav f20111 12 taxmann.com 4/T20111 46 SOT250(Hvd.)(URO); - Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [20151 63 ta…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…1 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91 TTJ (Delhi) 938; - Pr. CIT v. Ajanta Footcare (India) (P.) Ltd. [20171 84 taxmann.com 109fCal.): - Dy. CIT v. C, Krishna Yadav f20111 12 taxmann.com 4/T20111 46 SOT250(Hvd.)(URO); - Harish Textile Engineers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [20151 63 ta…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…ne) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vsA CIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) JayantiLal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) RakeshGoyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna LalJhalani 22 TW 551 (ITAT Jaipur) (12) Hissaria Brother Vs. ACIT 22 TW 684 (ITAT Jaipur) (13) DCIT Vs. Countrywide Buildestate Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur ITAT…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…ries vs. CCE 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (Page 186-189 of JPB). 2. Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). 3. CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited 288 ITR 345 (Del.). 28 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. 4. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del). 6. CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del) 8. CIT v Sunil Aggarwal 379 ITR 367 (Del) 9. Roger Enterprise Ltd vs. CIT 382 ITR 639 (Del) 10. Ms. Farrah Marker vs. Income Tax Officer, ITA.No.3801/Mum/20111 dated 27.04.2016. 11. Ms. Malti Gh…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1363/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…he payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cloud data was seized and which is the basis of ma…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1362/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…he payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cloud data was seized and which is the basis of ma…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1361/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

…he payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cloud data was seized and which is the basis of ma…