What is Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer cannot make additions to income solely based on a Valuation Officer's report under Section 55A or 142(2), particularly for unexplained investments or expenditure under Section 69B, as the AO is the primary fact-finding authority (this was the position pre-Section 142A).

How many judgments cite Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407), spanning 2007 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 142A, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 69, Section 69A.

Amiya Bala Paul v. CIT (262 ITR 407)

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 497/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 374 to 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Ardra Associates, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Capital Towers, Kozhikode. Thiruambady P.O., Patturaikkal, Thrissur-680 022. [PAN:AAIFA 2325E] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 495 to 499/Coch/2016 & ITA No. 241/Coch/2018) Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Ardra Associates, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Capital Towers, Income-…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT, Calicut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 496/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 374 to 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Ardra Associates, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Capital Towers, Kozhikode. Thiruambady P.O., Patturaikkal, Thrissur-680 022. [PAN:AAIFA 2325E] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 495 to 499/Coch/2016 & ITA No. 241/Coch/2018) Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Ardra Associates, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Capital Towers, Income-…

M/S.Ardra Associates, Trichur vs. The DCIT(, Trivandrum

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of

ITA 495/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos. 374 To 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 & 2014-15

Section 131Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. Nos. 374 to 379/Coch/2017 Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Ardra Associates, Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Capital Towers, Kozhikode. Thiruambady P.O., Patturaikkal, Thrissur-680 022. [PAN:AAIFA 2325E] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee-Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 495 to 499/Coch/2016 & ITA No. 241/Coch/2018) Assessment Years : 2008-09 to 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Ardra Associates, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Capital Towers, Income-…

ITO, Baran vs. Ganpati Plaza, Alwar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 545/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…`आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 466 & 467/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke M/s Ganpati Plaza The ITO, Vs. Near Police Station, Behror. Court Road, Behror, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG5801E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 545/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke The ITO, M/s Ganpati Pl…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 467/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…`आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 466 & 467/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke M/s Ganpati Plaza The ITO, Vs. Near Police Station, Behror. Court Road, Behror, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG5801E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 545/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke The ITO, M/s Ganpati Pl…

Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 466/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. A.S. Nehra (JCIT)

Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 142Section 147Section 148

…`आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 466 & 467/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke M/s Ganpati Plaza The ITO, Vs. Near Police Station, Behror. Court Road, Behror, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFG5801E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 545/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke The ITO, M/s Ganpati Pl…

Sh. Sanjay Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3795/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)

…ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13 Sanjay Dalmia, Vs DCIT INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―G‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3795 to 3801/Del/2014 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sanjay Dalmia, Vs. DCIT, 2nd Floor, Indraprakash Building, Central Circle-2, 21, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi PAN:AADPD9438N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Adv Revenue by: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/09/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHA…

M/S.Pathi Investments (Pvt) Ltd., Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2126/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Dr. Vishnu Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 145Section 154Section 234

…nding any discrepancy in the books of account taking as per Agreements, was presumptive and contrary to the law. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: 1. Sakthi Tourist Home vs. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 228 (Ker) 2. Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 407 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Star Builders [2007] 294 ITR 338 (Guj.) Now the Department is in appeal. 4. Sargam Cinema vs. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC) 7. Appellant maintained books of account which were produced before the Assessing Officer who test checked those books, however, could not point out any discrepancy in those books of account. The books of accou…

M/S. J Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 309/CHNY/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel

Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…ntary evidence, in support of its contention on the period of construction of the property. Assessee has not brought in any fresh documentary evidence to refute the findings made by DVO and CIT(A). Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amiya Bala Pal (262 ITR 407) has been carefully considered. Sec. 142A inserted by Finance Act, 2004 regarding the estimates by Valuation Officer with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972. In the present case, the reference for the valuation was made in 1999. INJAMBAKKAM PROPERTY: It is seen from the record that assessee accounted Rs.28.57 lakhs as on 31.03.1997 towards cost…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 308/CHNY/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel

Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…ntary evidence, in support of its contention on the period of construction of the property. Assessee has not brought in any fresh documentary evidence to refute the findings made by DVO and CIT(A). Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amiya Bala Pal (262 ITR 407) has been carefully considered. Sec. 142A inserted by Finance Act, 2004 regarding the estimates by Valuation Officer with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972. In the present case, the reference for the valuation was made in 1999. INJAMBAKKAM PROPERTY: It is seen from the record that assessee accounted Rs.28.57 lakhs as on 31.03.1997 towards cost…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel

Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…ntary evidence, in support of its contention on the period of construction of the property. Assessee has not brought in any fresh documentary evidence to refute the findings made by DVO and CIT(A). Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amiya Bala Pal (262 ITR 407) has been carefully considered. Sec. 142A inserted by Finance Act, 2004 regarding the estimates by Valuation Officer with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972. In the present case, the reference for the valuation was made in 1999. INJAMBAKKAM PROPERTY: It is seen from the record that assessee accounted Rs.28.57 lakhs as on 31.03.1997 towards cost…

Jay Farm House, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2011[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2016AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri G.Seetharaman, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar, Standing Counsel

Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

…ntary evidence, in support of its contention on the period of construction of the property. Assessee has not brought in any fresh documentary evidence to refute the findings made by DVO and CIT(A). Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Amiya Bala Pal (262 ITR 407) has been carefully considered. Sec. 142A inserted by Finance Act, 2004 regarding the estimates by Valuation Officer with retrospective effect from 15.11.1972. In the present case, the reference for the valuation was made in 1999. INJAMBAKKAM PROPERTY: It is seen from the record that assessee accounted Rs.28.57 lakhs as on 31.03.1997 towards cost…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5330/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40020 Chincpokli, Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas (Ar) Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,F ,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI "ी अ"मत शु"ला, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"वनी तनेजा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Ashwani Taneja, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. ITO WD 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AAACV2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 ITO WD 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40…

ITO, Ward-2 vs. Rajendra Agarwal

In the result the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are allowed for statistical purpose and CO of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 1998/DEL/2004[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raota No. 1998/Del/2004 (Assessment Year: 1994-95)

For Appellant: Sh.S.K.Khurana, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142Section 142ASection 55A

…wer u/s 131 and 133(6) of the Act as the said recourse of reference to DVO is provided u/s 55A of the Act. Thus the Tribunal held that in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul v CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407 the reference to DVO was bad and consequently granted relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. 4. The revenue carried the matter before the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court while deciding the appeal filed by the revenue for the Assessment Year 19…

Shubha Vichare, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1124/Mum/2013 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Smt.Shubha Vichare बिाम/ Income Tax Officer, No.7, Varuna Defence Office Ward 19(2)(4), Vs. Society, Linking Road, Mumbai. Santacruz (W) Mumbai-400054 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan. :Adtpv4719M अपीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms.Tasneem Varawala प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.112015 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :13.1.2016 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Tasneem VarawalaFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje

Section 55ASection 80I

…31 of 2008 c) DCIT V/s Chaturbhuj Vallabhdas (HUF) (2011) 130 ITD 230 d) Smt Krishnabai Tingre V/s ITO (2006) 101 ITD 317 (Pune) e) Ms.Rubab M Kazerani V/s JCIT (2004) 91 ITD 429 f) Vijaykumar M Shah V DCIT (2010) 2 ITR 116 g) Smt Amiya Bala Paul V CIT (2003) 262 ITR 407. He therefore prayed that the long term capital loss claimed by the assessee be allowed. 4. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the valuation report submitted by the assessee has no legal basis and also no legal sanctity. Accordingly, he relied on the order of lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the reco…