295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem

303 ITR 95High Court2008#862 most cited

What is 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem authority for?

Statements recorded under Section 131 of the Act do not hold evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to draw adverse inferences against the assessee, especially without corroborative evidence or proper enquiry.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. · 295 ITR 105 · Section 131 · evidentiary value · adverse inference · lack of enquiry · hearsay evidence · corroborative evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 69ASection 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 115adgaarsection 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66section 194qsection 153a proceedingssection 60section 63section 2(14)(iii)section 65section 115a

Judgments citing 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem

Smt Pooja Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

Shri Gaurav Sekhari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

Shri Bhupinder Kumar Sekhri, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

M/S. Keerthi International Products Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

M/S. Nova Infratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

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

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

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

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

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

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

…s 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 relied by learned CIT (A) have been received/ recorded in March 2011 i.e, prior to issuance of notice…

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

…the said statement in the assessment order nor giving copy thereof to the assessee nor affording opportunity to assessee to cross-examine R was liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice. 23.28 In CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del), it was held that 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 opp…

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. El Dorado Biotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1823/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah & Aman ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CITDR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f the High Court on the ground that the statements of a partner of another firm upon which the Sales Tax Tribunal relied, had not been tested by cross examinations. 9 AY: 2009-10 29. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also in case CIT v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta [2008] 303 ITR 95 (Delhi) held that where addition was sought to be made in reassessment proceedings only on the basis of statement, it was held that it was mandatory for the revenue to produce the proprietor for cross-examination by the assessee on its specific demand in that regard. Therefore, the reopening of assessment based on deposition of the third party was…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3995/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 3995/Del/2010 Ay: 2006-07 Ito, Ward 4(2), Vs. Jay Shiva Earthmovers & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 413A, Bu-60, Sfs Flats, Outer C.R. Building, Ring Road, Pitampura, I.P. Estate, Delhi – 85 New Delhi (Pan: Aabcj1414D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satyajeet Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3995/DEL/2010 AY: 2006-07 ITO, WARD 4(2), VS. JAY SHIVA EARTHMOVERS & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., ROOM NO. 413A, BU-60, SFS FLATS, OUTER C.R. BUILDING, RING ROAD, PITAMPURA, I.P. ESTATE, DELHI – 85 NEW DELHI (PAN: AABCJ1414D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Satyajeet Goel, Adv. Department by : Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 passed by the Ld…

Sd Polyfilms Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

…fter the recording of the reasons. Thus, there was a clear cut violation of principle of natural justice. In support, he relied upon the judgment of 29 I.T.A. No.4034/DEL/2019 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta as reported in 303 ITR 95. 10. On merits, he submitted that assessee has discharged its onus by producing all the documents by establishing the identity of the companies through various documents; secondly, their creditworthiness were shown from the income tax records and genuineness of the transaction was proved from the fact that the entire share capital/share premium ha…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…relied upon the following judgments: “i) CIT vs. Multiplex Trading and Industrial Co. Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ii) Chhugamal Raj Pal vs. ITO, (1971) 79 ITR 603 . iii) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (2009) 299 ITR 383 (Del.) iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.) v) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) vi) CIT vs. Sunita Dhada in SLP(C) Diary No.9432/2018 dated 28.03.2018. vii) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co., (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). viii) PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del) (ix) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (x) CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) (xi) C…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…cer does not do so, no inference can be drawn against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, i.e. Delhi High Court in CIT 27 M/s. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., v. Pradeep' Kumar Gupta and- Vijay Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del) wherein it was held that reopening of assessment is not permissible on mere adverse statements from others. Such statement by itself does not constitute information, unless the Assessing Of has made enquiries thereon and inferred understatement or Income. lain therefore inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant t…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3595/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip Aggarwal, Estate, New Delhi 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.353/Del/2009 [In Ita No.3595/Del/2009] Assessment Year: 2001-02 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Aggarwal, Ward-223, C.R. Building, Ip 301, G.K. House, 187-A, Sant Estate, New Delhi Nagar, East Of Kailash, New Delhi Pan :Acbpa8839L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…Officer, ITA No. 3149/Del/2013, order dated 09.01.2015; 2. ACIT Vs. Devesh Kumar, ITA No.2068/Del/2010, order dated 31st October, 2014, 3. Income Tax Officer Vs. Arti Khatter, ITA No. 2395/Del/2012, order dated 22nd August, 2014, 4. CIT Vs. Dr. Pradeep Gupta, 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 5. Pr. CIT Vs. G & G Pharma, ITA No. 545/2015, order dated 08.10.2015 (Del. H.C.) 7. On the merit of the addition, he submitted that all the credits received from M/s Aayusha Share Brokers Private Limited C.O. No. 353/Del/2009 stands explained before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he submitted that on merit, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) might…