293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal

295 ITR 105High Court2007#1033 most cited
105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,444 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal · 293 ITR 43 · Delhi High Court · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132(4) statement · Section 68 cash credits · Section 69C unexplained expenditure · evidentiary value · burden of proof · search assessment · natural justice principles

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(2)Section 69CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 115adsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 36(i)(va)section 153a proceedingssection 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 35(1)(ii)section 115atrue and full disclosure

Judgments citing 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5315/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal h) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta i ) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem chand Ltd . j) 306 ITR 27 (DeI) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar k) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta l) 315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT vs Jindal Vegetables Products Limited ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others 3.2. It is further submitted that all the aforesaid documents/ statement so mentioned in the assessment order and also reli…

Sh. Kapil Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5314/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal h) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta i ) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem chand Ltd . j) 306 ITR 27 (DeI) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar k) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta l) 315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT vs Jindal Vegetables Products Limited ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others 3.2. It is further submitted that all the aforesaid documents/ statement so mentioned in the assessment order and also reli…

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5313/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal h) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta i ) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem chand Ltd . j) 306 ITR 27 (DeI) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar k) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta l) 315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT vs Jindal Vegetables Products Limited ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others 3.2. It is further submitted that all the aforesaid documents/ statement so mentioned in the assessment order and also reli…

Smt. Aarti Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5312/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

…ated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal h) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta i ) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem chand Ltd . j) 306 ITR 27 (DeI) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar k) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta l) 315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT vs Jindal Vegetables Products Limited ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others 3.2. It is further submitted that all the aforesaid documents/ statement so mentioned in the assessment order and also reli…

Supariwala Export Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT. Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2039/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…t. Ltd. Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross- examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of-the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del). We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: "10. ....Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…initiation of reassessment proceedings on the basis of deposition of a third party without affording opportunity of cross- examination of the said party to the assessee despite specific demand was not valid. 23.29 In CIT Vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 105 (Del, it was held that the A.O not having given an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine the analyst on whose report the assessment was based despite several requests, assessment was rightly set aside by the CIT(A) and Tribunal for violation of principles of natural justice and no substantial question of law arose. 23.30 In CIT Vs. A.N. Dyanes…

Ssl Exports Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2670/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133ASection 250Section 271Section 35

…ng and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross-examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: "10.....Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oat…

Extent D Services, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle - 24(1), Hooghly

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2668/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.2668/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Extent D Services Vs. Acit, Circle-24(1), Kolkata. 1032, Rue-De-Corderie, Burabazar, Chandannagar, Hooghly. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfe6516B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & S.L. Kochar, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.09.2018 Passed In Case No.Cit(A), Kol-6/10221/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Persued. 2. The Assessee’S Delay Of 18 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Stated To Be Attributable To Communication Gap & Compilation Of Necessary Records Is Condoned On Account Of No Objection From Revenue Side. 3. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance On Merits Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing/Adding Its Section 35(1)(Ii) Deduction Claim Of Rs.33,00,000/- Qua Contribution Made To M/S School Of Human Genetics

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, Adv. & S.L. Kochar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, JCIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…ng and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross-examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Kharag Singh Singhee (Since Deceased) (Rep.by Basant Kr.Singhee, Legal Heir), Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD) Circle-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1542/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] I.T.A. No. 1542/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kharag Singh Singhee (Since Deceased)......................................…………………………Appellant (Rep. By Basant Kr. Singhee, Legal Heir) 9/12, 2Nd Floor, Mercantile Building, Lal Bazar Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Akqps 7038 C] Vs Jcit (Osd) Circle 9(1) Kolkata...................................................................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069.] Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2019 Order

Section 12ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…g and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross- examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017, for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oat…

J.P. Financial Services Pvt. Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.7/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…g and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross- examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Ebiw Info Analytics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.582/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 12ASection 147Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…g and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross- examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Rimjhim Vanijya Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 274/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.274/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Aryan Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…g and the Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of cross- examination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del).We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition wasupheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: “10…..Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on oath…

Shri Praveen Juneja L.H. (Son) of Late Smt. Kiran Juneja, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6672/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarasstt. Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 254Section 3

…uttressing out view point that statement of Shri JB Goel cannot be relied in evidence in case he is not subjected to the cross-examination by the assessee, we are fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Dharampal Prem Chand 295 ITR 105 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT 301 ITR 134. In view of the above discussion, we set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. It is needless to say that the observations made by us will not impair or injure the case of Assessing Officer or will…

Borsad Tobacco Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai

ITA 2040/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2040/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) In The Matter Of:

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Furia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Mohan Mittal
Section 133ASection 35(1)(ii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2040/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) In the matter of: DCIT Cen Cir-8(1), Borsad Tobacco Co. Pvt. Room No. 656, 6th floor, Ltd. बिधम/ 21st floor, Nirmal Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACB5089K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. Sweta Furia, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Amit Mohan Mittal, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ter, which has not been done in the case. Thus the AO has failed to discharge his duties. I.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 Assessment year 2013-14 M/s Bihari Lal Malpani The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of in the case of Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd reported in 295 ITR 105; while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue has held as under (page 108): There is no doubt that even if the strict rules of evidence may not apply, the basic principles of natural justice would apply to the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer placed reliance upon the report of the Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research for decidin…

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

…(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 such statement would be a conclusive evidence, nor a…

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

…(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 such statement would be a conclusive evidence, nor a…

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

…(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 such statement would be a conclusive evidence, nor a…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…f persons, who were not allowed to be cross-examined (refer objection filed at pages 58- 59 before the assessing officer), as held in the following decisions: - CIT V. Andaman Timber Industries V. CCE: 281 CTR 241 (SC) - CIT vs. M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd: 295 ITR 105 (Del) - CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta: 191 Taxman 51 (Del) - CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Limited: 288 ITR 345 (Del) - In view of the aforesaid, the addition on account of alleged deficit stock made by the assessing officer is erroneous and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Further, disallowance made by the AO under section 40A(3) of the Act on account of al…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. PAN No. AAGCA 9897 C Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Assessee by Shri Shrawan Gupta, Adv. Date of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 15/09/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. Both these appeals have been filed by the revenue against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A)-2, Udaipur dated 18/02/2016 and 05/07/2016 for…