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

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69CSection 69c

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Naseem Saad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 208/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Naseem Zafar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 207/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Nazia Zafar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 8093/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Daya Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 48(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7806/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Amitabh Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ation. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 th…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S Pumarth Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Indore, Indore

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 455/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Pumarth Income Tax (Central)-1 Vs. Commodities Pvt. Ltd, Indore 5/5A, Navratan Bagh, Opp. Geeta Bhawan Square, Behind Vishesh Hospital, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aadcp5381K Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr.Adv & Gagan Tiwari, Adv. Date Of Hearing 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 11.01.2019 O R D E R

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…nless it has correlation of the undisclosed income of the appellant. Further, no questions were asked during the search regarding the said page. Reliance has been placed on the Pumarth Commodities Pvt.Ltd decisions of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. S .M Agarwal (293 ITR 43) and Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lata Mangeshwar (96 ITR 696) (Born.). 4.3 First and foremost, the issue of evidentiary value of the seized page no.62 of LPS-B1/5 is being dealt with. It is seen that on the said seized documents dates from 21/06/2012 to 03/07/2012 are mentioned in the first column. In the next 10 columns 10 entities…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere statement under section 132(4) which was not corroborated by any material evidence, neither…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere statement under section 132(4) which was not corroborated by any material evidence, neither…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere statement under section 132(4) which was not corroborated by any material evidence, neither…

M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5572/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…tion. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 t…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Simbhaoli Sugars, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3001/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…tion. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 t…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3211/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…tion. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 t…

M/S. U.P. Distillery Association, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3210/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…tion. 64. The contention of the ld. 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 Shri 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 t…