How many judgments cite 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem?

121 judgments on BharatTax cite 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem (303 ITR 95), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132(4), Section 37(1), Section 133(6), Section 153A.

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 147 Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 153A Section 69A Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 115ad gaar section 2(1a)section 2(1)section 66 section 194q section 153a proceedings section 60 section 63 section 2(14)(iii)section 65 section 115a

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

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…itical burden u/s 148 of the Act to bring home the material that income has escaped assessment without which assessee cannot be asked to prove negative. For this reference may be made to sagacious observations of Hon’ble Delhi high court in Pardeep Gupta case 303 ITR 95. If this primary burden u/s 148 lying on AO remains un-discharged then in my considered opinion entire proceedings shall crumble (refer latin maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus meaning once foundation fails super structure falls). In present case AO till end has not brought on records the statement of searched person as recorded by investigation…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

ITA 5589/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…der 16. Rule 10 of CPC and where the Officer 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 v. Pradeep' Kumar Gupta and- Vijay Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del) wherein it was held that reopening of assessment is not permissible on 30 Shreedham Builders 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 beh…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. M D Garments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cross-Objector 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata....................................................................Respondent 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Sheth, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/s. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [PAN : AADCM 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising out of ITA No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cro…

Shri Vibhor Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2045/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Vibhor Singhal Vs. Ito C/O. Dinesh Mohan, Ward-2(4) Advocate, 2- Anand Vihar, Muzaffarnagar Lane No. 1, Circular Road Muzaffarnagar

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…“assessee company has introduced his own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of accommodation entries”. 8. Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the Assessee, placed reliance on other decisions of this Court including CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95; the decision dated 27th March 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 5330 of 2014 (Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT); the decision dated 4th August 2015 in ITA No. 486 of 2015 (CIT vs. Shri Govind Kripa Builders P.Ltd.) and the decision dated 24th August 2015 in ITA No. 226 of 2015 (CIT vs. Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd.) 9. The Court at the outset proposes to recapit…

Shri Anil Singhal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2044/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2008-09 Anil Singhal C/O. Dinesh Vs. Ito, Mohan, Advocate, 2- Anand Ward-1(1) Vihar, Lane No. 1, Circular Muzaffarnagar Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan-Bksps7631E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv Respondent By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2017 Order Per B.P. Jain, A.M. This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Vide Assessment Order Dated 24.01.2017 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Has Raised As Many Eleven Grounds Of Appeal & First Four Grounds Being Legal Which Have Been Pressed By The Assessee Are Reproduced Hereinbelow:- That The Notice Issued U/S 148 & Reassessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 1) 144 Are Illegal, Bad In Law & Without Jurisdiction. That, In View Of The Facts & Circumstances, No Satisfaction Is Recorded By 2) The Assessing Officer As Required U/S 147/148 Of The Act Prior Issuing The Notice Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. That, No Satisfaction Has Been Recorded By The Assessing Officer After 3) 2

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R

Section 147

…fully explained and thus he has erred in holding the initiation as valid and that the assessee had not discharged the burden. The learned CIT (Appeals) has over-looked the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta reported in 303 ITR 95 at page 98, wherein it 4 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. was held that, the burden is on the revenue to establish, there is an escapement of income. 7. That the learned CIT (Appeals) has further overlooked the fact of the instant case, that the amount received was returned back within a period of one month and thus it…

Ajay J Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 121/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Ajay J. Doshi-Huf, Income Tax Officer-12(2)(4), 21, Marker Tower ‘L’ Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ G.D. Somani Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Cuff Parade, Mumbai Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aacha8912M

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151

…"assessee company has introduced his own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of accommodation entries". 8. Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the Assessee, placed reliance on other decisions of this Court including CIT v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95; the decision dated 27th March 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 5330 of 2014 (Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT); the decision dated 4th August 2015 in ITA No. 486 of 2015 (CIT v. Shri Govind Kripa Builders P.Ltd.) and the decision 9 Ajay J. Doshi dated 24th August 2015 in ITA No. 226 of 2015 (CIT v. Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd.) 9. The Court at the outset prop…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…'ble ITAT, New Delhi 2. ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328ITR 515 S.C. 3. CITv. India Terminal Connector System-Ltd. ITA No. 6430f2011. 4. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal V. Income-tax Officer (1993) 203 ITR 456 SC: 5. CIT V. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95; 6. Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. V. ACIT, in WP. (C) No. 5330 of 2014 7. Chhugamal Rajpal V. SP Chaliha (1971) 79ITR 603, Supreme Court 8. ACIT Vs. Sh. Devesh Kumar reported as ITA No. 20681De112008, wherein it was held: 9. CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys u« & Ors., SLP No. 15640/2012. (SC). 10. CIT Vs. Kamdhenu Steels & Alloys Ltd. & Ors.,…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/169/2017HC Delhi14 Mar 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 68

…. Rule 10 of CPC and where the officer 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 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 Officer has made enquiries thereon and inferred understatement or Income. 1am therefore inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Namita Devi Kothari, Rajasthan

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 528/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kant

…of Income-tax (Appeals) might be upheld. In support of contention of not remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer, the learned counsel relied on following decisions: (i) Delhi High Court Decision in the case of CIT V. Pradeep Kumar Gupta reported in 303 ITR 95 (ii) Delhi High Court Decision in the case of CIT V. Rajesh Kumar reported in 306 ITR 27 (iii) Tribunal Delhi Bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd reported in 73 ITD 125 AYs: 2005-06 & 2006-07 (iv) Tribunal Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Neena Syal Vs. ACIT reported in 70 ITD 62 (v) Tribunal Delhi Bench Third Membe…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Namita Devi Kothari, Rajasthan

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 527/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kant

Sh. Kuljit Singh Arora (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2843/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : “D” NEW DELHI SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM ITA No: 2843/Del/2015 AY : - 2003-04 Kuljit Singh Arora (HUF) vs. ITO 8/3, WEA, Abdul Aziz Road Ward-33(2) Karol Bagh C.R. Building New Delhi-110 005 New Delhi PAN AAAHK5505J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by :Shri R.S. Singhvi & Shri Satyjit Goel, CA Respondent :Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) XVII, New Delhi dated 25.3.2015 for t…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…ove the receipt of the share application money, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) " CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95 (Del.) 31 Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. 13. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observation made by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " ITO Vs Purushottam Das Bangur (1997) 224 ITR 362 " Midland Fruit & Vegetable Products (Ind…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Co., Pvt. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 653/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III

Section 131Section 37

…he Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd., as reported in 288 ITR 345 and also on another judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Pradeep ITA No.653(B)/2015 Kumar Gupta as reported in 303 ITR 95. He also submitted that copies of these judgments are available on pages - 31 to 32 and 33 to 36 respectively. 5. On this issue ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the addition has been made mainly on the basis of sworn statement u/s 131 of Mr.R.Gangadh…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Minda Investment Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the

ITA 4391/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 68

…imilar view was expressed in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). Reliance is also placed on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court i.e. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta(2008) 303 ITR 95(Delhi) 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 Officer has made enquiries thereon and inferred understatement of income. I am therefore inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appel…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 647/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and where the officer 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 Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Vijay Gupta(2008) 303 ITR 95(Delhi) 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 understatement of income. I am therefore inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the information, if ,any, gather…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed granting relief of Rs

ITA 306/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, & Somil Aggarwal, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

M/S Rainbow International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3107/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the basis of the statement recorded of third party and without providing opportunity of cross examination of the witness to the assessee, in view of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta & Anr. reported in (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Delhi). We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case has held as under:- “That the assessment had not been completed under section 143(3) of the Act. There were banking transactions between the assesses and A. The reassessment proceedings had been initiated after several years of the acceptance of the return under section 143(1) of…

Sh. Ashok Ambwani, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 186/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate and Shri Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR

Section 147

…on the basis of same statement of Shri Harish Pawar, the case of Jiten Gurnani was reopened. However, ITAT, after considering the facts of the case and relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta – 303 ITR 95, held that on the basis of those facts, reassessment was legally unsustainable. He furnished the copy of reasons recorded in the case of Jiten Gurnani and compared the same with the reasons recorded in the case of the assessee and pointed out that identical reasons were recorded in the case of Jiten Gurnani. He also relied upon the decision of Hon…

Shraddha Jain, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 3280/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Gargita No. 3280/Del. 2015 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Tulsiyan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 270Section 68

…“assessee company has introduced his own unaccounted money in its bank account by way of accommodation entries”. 8. Mr. Kapil Goel, learned counsel for the Assessee, placed reliance on other decisions of this Court including CIT v. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95; the decision dated 27th March 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 5330 of 2014 (Krown Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT); the decision dated 4th August 2015 in ITA No. 486 of 2015 (CIT v. Shri Govind Kripa Builders P.Ltd.) and the decision dated 24th August 2015 in ITA No. 226 of 2015 (CIT v. Ashian Needles Pvt. Ltd.) 9. The Court at the outset proposes to recapitula…