257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal

22 SOT 174Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#8319 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationsection 153(c)section 164section 38third party informationonus of proofincome tax settlement commission

Judgments citing 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ancial year." 43It is also submitted that burden is on revenue to show unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, such burden has not been discharged on the facts of the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT (extracted at page 313 of Paper Book) ii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal (extracted at pages 313-314 of Paper Book) iii) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extr…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ancial year." 43It is also submitted that burden is on revenue to show unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, such burden has not been discharged on the facts of the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT (extracted at page 313 of Paper Book) ii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal (extracted at pages 313-314 of Paper Book) iii) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extr…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…ancial year." 43It is also submitted that burden is on revenue to show unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, such burden has not been discharged on the facts of the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT (extracted at page 313 of Paper Book) ii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal (extracted at pages 313-314 of Paper Book) iii) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v. Rakesh Narang (extracted at pages 314 of Paper Book) iv) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF (extr…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT 17.3 In view of the above it is submitted that additions made are not in accordance with law. 18 In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act is non-est in law and without jurisdiction and therefore the orders passed…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT 17.3 In view of the above it is submitted that additions made are not in accordance with law. 18 In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act is non-est in law and without jurisdiction and therefore the orders passed…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT 17.3 In view of the above it is submitted that additions made are not in accordance with law. 18 In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act is non-est in law and without jurisdiction and therefore the orders passed…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ansal xi) ITA no. 610/2012, Dated 19.10.2012 (Del) CIT vs Dinesh Jain HUF xii) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. xiii) 81 taxmann.com 257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal, xiv) 64 taxmann.com 332 (Del) ACIT v.Rakesh Narang, xv) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) Rupee Finance & Management (P.) Ltd. v ACIT 17.3 In view of the above it is submitted that additions made are not in accordance with law. 18 In view of the aforesaid it is submitted that, the proceedings initiated by invoking the provisions of section 153C of the Act is non-est in law and without jurisdiction and therefore the orders passed…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI HARISH BHANDARI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3049/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shashi Bhushan Shukla, CIT DR
Section 132Section 17(2)(vi)Section 28

…e value of Rs. 200 per share was only an actuarial valuation of what the share might be valued at after 5years. The actual book value per share was only Rs.9.98/-. (3) It has been held in the case of M/s Rupee Finance and Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2008) 22 SOT 174 (Mum) that a mere purchase of shares for a consideration which less than the market value does not constitute a benefit or perquisite u/s 28(iv). (4) In September, 2009 and 26.02.2010 under the approval of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the share premium on sweat equity shares has been reduced to Nil in the books of M/s RHL. Correspondingly “Security…

JALAN CARBONS & CHEMICLAS (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR 4(2), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal& Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 45(4)

…s facts are concerned, we note that thefull value of consideration refers to price bargained for by the parties and it cannot refer to adequacy of consideration, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, in the case of Rupee Finance & management (p) Ltd (2008) 22 SOT 174 (Mum). At the assessment stage, the assessee submitted relevant details before the AO, and the Jalan Carbons & Chemicals (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2011-12 AO failed to bring any evidence on record to establish that details so submitted are false.We note that the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory…

MADHU SARDA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

ITA 7410/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhin The Matter Of Mrs. Madhu Sarda , 38,Vikas Center, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400054 Pan: Aajps 5135R Appellant/ Assessee Versus Income Tax Officer, -19(4) Mumbai Respondent/ Revenue

For Respondent: Sh. V. Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…nest and bona fide transaction where the consideration received by the assessee has been correctly declared or disclosed by him, and there is no concealment or suppression of the consideration........... " 19. . In Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. (2008) 22 SOT 174 (Mum); (2009) 120 ITD 539 (Mum) it has been held in penultimate para of the order that: " As already held in the order of Rupee Finance & Management Pvt. Ltd. there is no allegation much less, any evidence to show that these assesses before us have received monies in excess of amounts of sale consideration recorded and disclosed in the transacti…

ADITYA BIRLA TELECOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMM OF INCOME TAX 10(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 341/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar, Sp. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 391Section 394Section 45Section 47

…r market value of the asset on the date of transfer. Reliance placed on (i) KP Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) (SC) (ii) CIT vs George Henderson & Co., (66 ITR 622) (iii) Gillianders Arbuthnot (SC) (87 ITR 407) (iv) Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd., vs ACIT (22 SOT 174) as approved by Bombay HC. 27. Learned AR further contended that deemed consideration is only applicable under section 50C and section 50D which is not the case in the matter. 28. As per learned AR demerger of telecom undertaking is not a slump sale. Pre-requisite condition of slump sale i.e., „sale‟ is missing. Transfer of property consequent to…

D.C.I.T. RG.3(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMA CAPITAL AND FISCAL SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.205/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.206/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 3(3), Room M/S. Rama Capital & बनाम/ No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Fiscal Services Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 51/52, Free Press House, 400020 215, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7189J

For Appellant: Shri. J.D.Mistri
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T(A) accepted the sale price at Rs.1.00 per share. The Learned representative in support of his contention placed reliance on the law settled in case of K.P.Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai(22 SOT 174). The issue relating to fare market value and sale value, is discussed in the case of Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai (Supra) as under: “Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Computation of – Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 – Whether under section 48 starting point for computation of capital gains…

A.C.I.T. RG.3(3), MUMBAI vs. RAMA CAPITAL AND FISCAL SERVICES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 205/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.205/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.206/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 3(3), Room M/S. Rama Capital & बनाम/ No.609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Fiscal Services Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai- 51/52, Free Press House, 400020 215, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7189J

For Appellant: Shri. J.D.Mistri
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…T(A) accepted the sale price at Rs.1.00 per share. The Learned representative in support of his contention placed reliance on the law settled in case of K.P.Varghese Vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) and Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai(22 SOT 174). The issue relating to fare market value and sale value, is discussed in the case of Rupee Finance & Management (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 7(2), Mumbai (Supra) as under: “Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Computation of – Assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 – Whether under section 48 starting point for computation of capital gains…

257 (Bom) CIT v. Devesh Agarwal (22 SOT 174) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax